Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey 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 --JForget 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Poorly-named duplicate of I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time that's an unlikely search term (otherwise, I would just have made it into a redirect). I tried to make it a speedy but couldn't find any criteria that fit.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom notwithstanding lack of criteria. Common sense dictates.....--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Contents aren't duplicated. Merge relevant details and create redirect at I'll be lovin u long time. Add "(Mariah Carey song)" to the title of the other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
Delete Actually they are. They are both articles for I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time, a Mariah Carey song. The article at I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time was there before this one was created. As there is no other songs under this title, there is no need for this one here, as "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" is a more plausible search term then "I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, actually they aren't. Maybe I'm being harsh but, duplicated means the content would be the same. It isn't. It is however, an article about a subject that is already covered. Both articles have good elements which combined make a better article than either one currently does on its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant article, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity which bit is thought to be an unlikely search term. I think not capitalising things or using the ' correctly are likely to be common errors if searching for information about this song. I grant you most people won't include "(Mariah Carey song)" in the search but, I thought this was pretty standard as part of the article naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People won't search it with the parentesees, that's why its an unliky search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes search with parentheses, especially if it's for a band or a song name that I expect will take me to a redirect page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the vast majority of searchers would not. And besides, this title isn't exactly a common one. And it's not capitalized correctly. Nor is there a space before the first bracket. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to this debate seem to be underestimating how very very very cheap redirects are. I'd have a redirect just for the handful of people who may have watchlisted the article we're discussing. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every single article can have tens, if not a hundred, different possible search terms. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BOLD. It could be deleted as a search for this namespace is unlikely; speedy close. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (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.