Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Way Around
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Living Lohan. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the Way Around (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable single. Only sources are very minor chart positions and YouTube, no sources seem to exist. Will most likely be undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirections can be protected if people undo them without concensus. That is no reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the song has charted, the article is referenced, and it's more than a stub and has the potential to grow. Passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Why is this here? It passes WP:MUSIC. It's been on top charts and has very high notability. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "very high notability" if there aren't any third party sources about it and it was only a #115 hit? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm
keep, source number 2 lists it as charting at #11. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That's 11 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, or 111 on the Hot 100. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm
- In that case a merge suggested as below is a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Living Lohan. The series highlighted the making of this single, and there isn't a good reason to have two separate articles.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with above, Merge to Living Lohan. A single placing #111 (and a non-debut single at that) isn't noteworthy in and of itself. One sentence in the Living Lohan article ought to do it.--Wee Charlie (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support delete, but merge with Living Lohan as described above is a compromise I can live with.--64.201.38.62 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Esradekan Gibb's comment. Europe22 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 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.