Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever & Always

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. Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Always[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Not only does it lack significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that aren't album reviews, but there also is not enough information to expand beyond a stub. The secondary sources used only briefly mention it, and the other sources are primary sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fearless (Taylor Swift album). All major information about the song is already included there. Chart positions are included at Taylor Swift discography. There's really no need for this content fork that fails NSONG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it made the Billboard Hot 100 twice at no.34, the song is discussed in the context of the singer's relationships, not just mentioned, in bios by Riley Brooks (2010), Frankie Taylor (2013), Melissa Higgins (2012), G Whiz (2014), Wayne Wheelwright (2013), Louisa Jepson (2013), Sarah Parvis (2009) from just the first page of Google Book results, another 7 books on the second page including James E. Perone The Album 2012 which isn't about Taylor Swift. User:SNUGGUMS did you do a Google Book search before issuing this AfD? The multiplicity of bios of Swift may be cookie cutter pulp, but the Perone book doesn't appear to be. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is NOT an automatic indicator of notability. Songs also need to be discussed outside of album reviews. As for the books you mention.....

The books from Riley Brooks, Frankie Taylor, Melissa Higgins, G Whiz, Wayne Wheelright, and Louisa Jepson each only give it one sentence
The Sarah Parvis book only gives it four sentences total
James E. Perone's book is an album review of Fearless, and WP:NSONGS states that 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. It only gives one paragraph on the song, anyway.

Therefore, this song doesn't warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IIO. -- Calidum 03:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Chase, Snuggums and nominator. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per In ictu oculi. If I had time, I'd work on expanding the article because it obviously passes notability. It's quite unfortunate it's at the state it is in now, but that's not a reason for deletion. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth adding that it was a top forty hit, and sold over 1 million copies in the US, despite not being a single. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable (perhaps barely but clearly). If the guidelines indicate otherwise (not convinced that they do but others seem to think so) then the guidelines need tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is currently an RM open for this article, which should IMO not be closed as move until this AfD is closed but that's all that is now stopping the move, which is in the backlog the normal discussion period having expired. So if this closes as keep please give a heads-up at the RM on this article's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2014 (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.