Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Romance

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Soap Opera (album). Stifle (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Romance

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its parent album, Soap Opera (album). This article may be a leftover from older times when a song was considered eligible for an article just because it was released by a notable band. In it's own right, there's really not much else to say about the song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soap Opera (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote below per Rlendog. SBKSPP (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - While there does not seem to be as many independent, reliable sources available for this single as the others that were nominated around the same time (e.g., Ducks on the Wall) there are certainly more than implied by the nomination (and almost certainly more than are in the article now, for the reasons I described in the other nominations). Even if not kept as a standalone article, the sourced information should be merged to the parent article. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources added to the article by Rlendog. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soap Opera (album). Clearly fails WP:NSONG. While Rlendog has done an excellent job sourcing the article, the song still does not pass NSONG. First, the song does not meet any of the three specific criteria given at NSONG. It did not rank on any music charts, win any significant awards, and it has not been covered by multiple artists. Additionally, because the sources added by Rlendog are mainly about the broader album, Soap Opera, they can not be considered significant coverage of the song per this text as written in NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." As such, keep is not an option under policy and merge is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per 4meter4; none of the three listed criteria at WP:NSONG are met, it's pretty clear on that. The sourcing is indeed excellent, but it can be excellent over on the Soap Opera page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddude14 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.