Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Love 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Love Song[edit]

Yet another non-notable single by Raven-Symoné. Yamh91 constantly undoes all redirects of Raven-Symoné related articles, accusing me of vandalism in the process, so here we are again. Never charted. Fails WP:NSONGS. Per NSONGS, title should be a redirect to the parent album, thus all current content should be deleted, and a protected redirect installed. —Kww(talk) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as it hasn't charted or been covered in any sources. If redirected, it will easily be recreated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Yamh91 should also be beat with the clue stick (and blocked if he or she continues to ABF). JuJube (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no deletion rationale provided. AFD is not for content disputes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Failing WP:NSONGS is certainly a deletion rationale. Clarified my language.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator is really calling for a redirect over an article. None of this requires a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. There are different ways in which something can be not notable; and, as User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things says, thus different ways of dealing with them. You've basically brought a talk-page dispute, over an ordinary editorial action, to AFD, when the eventual action either way, be it reinstating or undoing the redirect, does not involve the use of administrator tools, and does not involve deletion at all. If you want to discuss mergers, then {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} are the templates, not {{subst:afd1}}. If you want to bring in outside opinions to help resolve an impasse over an ordinary editorial action, then Wikipedia:Requests for comments, Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, and Wikipedia:Third opinion are the places. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is for deletion, as the name states. It's not for things that don't involve the administrator deletion tool. AFD is one of the highest trafficked parts of Wikipedia. It has enough traffic that actually involves deletion without need for traffic that does not. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article absolutely fails inclusion guidelines, must be deleted, and therefore I brought it to AFD. The installation of a redirect afterwards is as a courtesy, and, because of the actions of Yamh91, that redirect needs to be protected to prevent further recreations of the article. Admin tools are absolutely necessary to accomplish this.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Kww. One song that never charted does not, can not and, in all likelihood, will not justify an article in its own right. Judging by the behaviour of the creator, I think the nominator has done the right thing. It might, technically, be the wrong forum, but if I had a penny for every time AfD was used in place of another forum, I'd be a rich man. The content should be deleted (redirect if it must), protected and the authour warned. HJMitchell You rang? 15:27, 12 May 2009 (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.