Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest Thing

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. Wizardman 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Thing

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, there is no indication that it was ever released, no notable chart placements, no performance of any kind, no major news from either artist. Basically a collaboration that never materialized. Delete this since this is completely redundant in place of the parent album Closer to the Truth. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - see the first line of WP:NSONGS, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." This is a song written and performed by two of the biggest names in modern music history and written about by DigitalSpy, Huffington Post and MTV, for example, though the coverage has been a lot more low-key about the subsequent problems. Sionk (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The low key coverage itself I believe makes it fail the first line of WP:NSONGS which you pointed out though. I believe this failed collaboration has enough meat for a para in the parent album article, however, standalone it fails. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the nomination rationale, I'd say this violates WP:SPECULATION as "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources [including Cher herself], are not appropriate encyclopedic content and an unreleased recording is not a suitable topic for an article, no matter how notable the musicians. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is about the song, not the musicians, as you surely must know. Sionk (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the article and looked at the refs before casting my !vote. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:26, 5 January 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, Ethically ^(Yours) 07:08, 12 January 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.