Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Send My Love (To Your New Lover)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Send My Love (To Your New Lover)

Send My Love (To Your New Lover) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article quite clearly lacks notability. Yes it charted in 11 countries, but that doesn't make it so. There's only song reviews as part of an album review, there's no independant coverage, no other third party sources, no awards or special recognition, it's not a single. There's no point creating articles for the sake of doing so, and that is what is being done here. People can go on about letting it be improved over time all they like, but until then, it will still be not notable for mainspace. if you really feel that strongly about the article staying, be bold and improve it yourself steadfastly so there's actually something worth reading instead of just saying to let it ride and see how it goes.  — Calvin999 11:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. The song is notable. It has charted in close to a dozen countries. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but that is not a reason to delete it. Let's keep the article so people can expand it over time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you not just copy and paste your reason from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Years Ago (song) please. None of your reason for voting keep explains how this is notable. Have you even looked at what constitutes a notable article and what requirements it needs to pass?  — Calvin999 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with doing so if the same reasoning applies. Yes, I have looked at what constitutes a notable article, and I've cast my vote accordingly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm left questioning your right to be able to edit on Wikipedia then, because you are not adhering to what constitutes a notable article/choosing to ignore it on purpose. Multiple editors have expressed that these articles are not notable and you keep reverting everyone without valid reasons in your summaries which could be interpreted as WP:OWN. Someone of your edit count and longevity of contribution should know the rules better. — Calvin999 17:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I am reverting because I believe the topics are notable and should be kept. Others have also reverted the redirects. There is no need to question my ability to edit Wikipedia. We simply disagree, and now we have this space for discussing the song's notability. Let's let others participate in the discussion. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
          • You are reverting because you believe that the articles are notable. One other editor has reverted because he thinks that the right place for discussion is AfD. Two different things.  — Calvin999 18:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
            • You are right, I did revert because I believe this song is notable. Let's please stop going back and forth and just let others participate in the discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
              • No one is stopping anyone from participating. Believing something is notable is different to it actually being notable.  — Calvin999 18:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

*Merge to 25 (Adele album) per the guidelines in WP:NSONG "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." I cannot find any coverage of the song outside that context so merging seems appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per Softlavender. Good work finding significant coverage outside of the context of an album review. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator and Winner 42, AB, love your work but its getting really repetitive with creation of articles failing WP:NSONGS. And yes, I do add my comment after researching something and seeing if its worth keeping or not, which this one does not. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't create this stub. I created the original redirect. Please do not accuse me of repeatedly creating articles that fail NSONGS. There is nothing wrong with creating valid, purposeful redirects. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, your comments seem to contradict what you said here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I explained why later. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Easily meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Charting in at least 12 countries that we know of. There is a massive amount of significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including multiple full articles on this song:

-- Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per Softlavender. Clearly passes WP:GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Softlavender, and I would ask y'all to stop blaming Another Believer for anything, he has done nothing but improve the article. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Improved? Clearly you haven't checked the article history.  — Calvin999 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I have not expanded the article, but thanks, Marano, for your contributions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - per the many sources that cover it in significant detail, and charting in so many different countries. No offense, the nominators of all these Adele songs recently really need to slow down and re-evaluate their thoughts on notability. These have been some pretty rough nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as per SoftLavender. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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.