Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Way (song)

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On My Way (song)

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

This article has no sources that indicate notability. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this song in their list (or are dead links or the song's video on youtube or the artist's general web site, which doesn't seem to mention the song, or a place to download the song, or the artist's twitter account, etc.). The article was created (recently, 31 March 2013) by a user that has been previously blocked and repeatedly warned about creating spurious discography articles with no evidence of notability, and has subsequently continued the practice. The article has been tagged for questionable notability for a week, with no response. Once the article was created and stabilized (around the end of May 2013), it seems to have been basically abandoned by its creator and the community in general – except for a renaming discussion that raised some policy issues and had a rather questionable outcome. BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the song just made it into the news on Thursday: [1]. On the other hand, I do support the idea that treating this obscure song as if it's the only "On My Way" notable enough to have its own article, and therefore we can tolerate its stupid WP:PDAB, is crazy. The On My Way (Ben Kweller song) is at least as notable, being in a book, as this one is in a news item. If we can't get the title fixed, maybe I'll vote to delete it after all, then when it comes back it can be properly disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that Gazette article you cited. In my opinion, it is not evidence of notability. It doesn't discuss the song in any depth or even say what the song is about – it is just a concert announcement about a music festival that mentions that one of the performers will be this artist and that one of the songs he will perform is this one. Anyhow, whether the article goes away or not, I'm really more interested in making the WP:PDAB situation go away. Maybe I should start a move review, but deleting the article would solve the problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact that I do very much love the song, basing my view on Wikipedia guidelines such as notability, this song does not meet the notability requirements. There are millions of songs out there and one cannot create an article for every song based on where it falls on a few charts or the number of you tube videos it promotes. One of which is produced by people directly related to it. Specifically it fails at WP:SIGCOV (including the gazette article) and WP:GNG maybe one day that will change, however, today my view is to delete. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlie Brown (singer) after that article is restored and expanded using available sources, e.g. Huffington Post, The Independent, Reveal, Daily Record, Digital Spy, Female First. The coverage that's out there and the major chart hit mean that an article on the singer is appropriate. There isn't enough to justify a separate article on the single, but the chart information should be retained and merged. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pointless to be deleting first charting single of a singer getting media coverage. I couldn't find an AfD for the original Charlie Brown (singer) article (created stub), was there one? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charting on seven national charts passes WP:NSONG. Aspects (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read it that way. WP:NSONG says "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. ... a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Here, we don't even have coverage of the song in the context of an album review. We have no WP:SIGCOV of the song at all. The mere inclusion of a song in a chart list is not significant in-depth coverage. Proper coverage should be WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, and should have WP:PERSISTENCE. Simple WP:ROUTINE content like cursory reviews of recent releases and concert events is not enough, and we don't even have that. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; you have got to be kidding me. It charted in the top ten in three charts (WP:NSONG criteria #1), including one the other side of Europe from where it was released, there is a reasonably detailed article there (main criterion) - what more can you possibly ask for?--Laun chba ller 18:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; The song has peaked to number 7 on the UK Singles Chart, number 10 in Scotland and the song has also charted in Australia and Belgium, it passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A proper article really needs to contain more than chart list placement numbers, regardless of what values those numbers have. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Procedural Close – Sure it is Charlie Brown's only hit in the United Kingdom, but not every song article is perfect. Billboard Man (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give it time to grow. At present it fails the main para of WP:NSONGS Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. At present it has information about the single, about the video and about the chart entries - but it has nothing, zilch, zero, nada, about the song. A song article with nothing about the song? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2013 (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.