Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over You (Girlicious song)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over You (Girlicious song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that has not charted. Per WP:NSONG "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" but author contested redirection. I42 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song has yet to be released, and there has yet to chart. Their is enough information and sources on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by S2daam (talk • contribs)

Delete a non-charting single that is not notable enough for its own article (upmerge it to the relevant album).--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...a clip was released to the girls' Myspace." Pretty much says that the band no longer has major label distribution despite their start on a reality show (and even if they do releasing a song on MySpace is not a major event). Fails WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group has been signed to Universal Music Canada to generate airplay to the Canadian market. Now some radio stations are playing the song, so there's no problem at all. So my verdict is Remain (Source: http://girliciousweb.net/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh001175 (talk • contribs)
- That site is disqualified as being used as a source per WP:FANSITE. Even then they aren't Canadian artists so any sources from there (especially as something as silly as a song popularity contest on a radio station) do not matter within this article. Nate • (chatter) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If they are notable in Canada, they are notable period. I do not understand why sources from Canada do not matter within an article on an American band. Should all American sources be purged from Beatles articles because The Beatles are British? Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign your posts. The nominator is stating the facts and not being harsh. And again in this nomination American sources must be used as that is the band's nation of origination. Nate • (chatter) 07:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This argument that only sites in the band's nation of origin can be used is frankly nonsense. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait this single is more than likely going to chart in Canada (at least) but it doesn't have enough references to have it's own page though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.161.93 (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Knock it off with adding Canadian mentions. Unless the entire band has declared themselves Canadian citizens suddenly, they are all unimportant for what is an American band. American sources and American charts must be used in this article and all mentions of Canada will continue to be removed. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - "Knock it off with adding Candian mentions"? "American sources and American charts must be used in this article and all mentions of Canada will continue to be removed?" Which policy are you referring to? If you are going to instruct editors what they "must" do and what they should "knock off", please do so consistently with policy. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst I appreciate your supporting the nomination, I cannot see any logic in your argument that Canadian sources are irrlevant. I42 (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Girlicious is clearly an American band, and for the purposes of music articles most of them should focus on the measurements from the artist/band's nation of their origin. The article has found no American sources at all and is relying exclusively on irrelevant Canadian statistics, including a radio station gimmick in Halifax and a Twitter post mentioning Canadian releases; I would love to see American statistics to even move towards a weak delete. Nate • (chatter) 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what they are American? If they attain notability elsewhere, that's still notability. Which policy says otherwise? I42 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What policy or guideline states that "for the purposes of music articles most of them should focus on the measurements from the artist/band's nation of their origin"? That is simply untrue. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see are mentions on forums, blogs, fansites and the like. I can not find anything that would be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is needed for an article to meet WP:NSONGS. I don't have a problem giving it a week or so to see if this charts and/or becomes a notable song, but at this time it's not. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they were notable in Canada they'd pass WP:BAND even if no American other than their families had ever heard of them. Notability has no connection whatsoever to nationality one way or the other. But they don't seem to be notable in Canada or anywhere else right now. --NellieBly (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article seems premature, but given that it has been created and the single has already been released, it seems best to give a short amount of time to see if it does actually chart in Canada before deleting. If it does chart in Canada it would meet WP:MUSIC, any nonsense above about only American (presumably meaning "U.S.") statistics counting notwithstanding. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't care if the article stays or goes, but I'd like to add my voice to those stating that the claim that an article on an American band must display notability in the USA specifically is one of the more ludicrous things I've ever read on WP. Presumably Sixteen Stone should be deleted because Bush was a British band and therefore a #4 US chart placing "doesn't count"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I will take back my call for exclusively American sources. It was more about the article using a few references because the article editors seemed to be Canadian and only looking for local references rather than spread them out to other countries (which should be done). However the ones currently in the article are all Twitter and a band fansite, when it really needs much better sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignore the irrelevant discussion about nationalities. An individual song is rarely notable, so any encyclopedic information should be in the band's article. Sussexonian (talk) 00:08, 24 December 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.