Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Too Human

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Too Human

)

No real claim to notability. Maximum chart position is stated as 22, which isn't really that notable ! No references given, and the article on the band itself gives more information about this song than this article itself. CultureDrone (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I can't even find anything to verify that they made #22, and what chart it was actually made on (ie: Mainstream Top 40, or some hyper-obscure niche chart). The single does not appear to be notable on its own, and it is discussed much more on the article The Rakes, making a merge illogical. Lankiveil (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC).Keep upon further thought - evidence provided that the charting claim is not bogus, so just falls over the line. Still needs radical improvement though. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Under
WP:MUSIC a band that has charted a single on a national chart is presumed to be notable. I'll see if I can find information to confirm the articles assertion. Xymmax (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm reading too fast, I see now we're talking about the single, (which did hit number 22 per the band's article.)) I agree the single is not sufficiently notable for its own page, I would simply Redirect this page to Rakes. Xymmax (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of the other band's singles have pages for them that aren't up for deletion. This page just needs to be cleaned up a bit. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One question then - are ALL a bands singles automatically notable and entitled to their own article ? Perhaps some of the other singles mentioned shouldn't have their own articles either... CultureDrone (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then there's a question in itself. If the other singles at that page were also nominated for deletion, I would probably have voted to merge/redirect them all to the band's page. It just seems weird to single out this one song. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument to keep. --neonwhite user page talk 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN single. Placing 22 on a chart (it doesn't even say which chart) isn't very high. As well it has no references backing up this claim. And
Other crap exists isn't a valid keep argument. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep a website that has a large database of all the Top 40 singles to ever chart on the UK Top 75 says that the single did indeed chart in the UK, hitting #21 (not #22) in March 2006 and was the band's third top 40 single in the country and it was the band's highest charting single. The page does need to be wikified, but single is definitely notable Doc Strange (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that this was their highest charting single is already covered in the article about the band itself CultureDrone (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because it's their highest charting single doesn't make it notable. It makes it notable to the band, but doesn't make it notable to the encyclopedia. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to the The Rakes. Shoessss | Chat 19:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the band's page. There is no point in making articles that can easily be configured into the main article. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ummm... If charting 22 is not good enough to be noted, what is? I feel that charting in the top 40 (seeing that the UK Charts keep a year long database of each week's Top 40). If you delete this article, you have to delete every non-top 10 single ever. Believe me, there are a lot of those on wikipedia. (talk) I do not post from a certain point in time, but from all points in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.122.123 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks substantial content.
talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

'Redirect - it actually reached 21 according to everyhit.co.uk but that alone doesnt really make it notable. --neonwhite user page talk 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Re-list why….I consensus was reached! I wouldn’t say which way. Nevertheless, this should have been closed! Shoessss | Chat 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I guess it could be notable by
WP:Music Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. #22 in the UK makes a single notable. Easily. We have thousands of pages on singles like this, and they are notable if they've reached a national chart. I don't see why people are saying that this should be deleted or redirected.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make it notable. As the guideline says A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. There really is no point to keeping this article, it provides no more information than is contained on the band's article. --neonwhite user page talk 05:38, 3 January 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.