Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything (Lifehouse song)

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. Rlendog (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (Lifehouse song)

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

This song is not notable enough to warrant its own article. According to WP:SONGS#Notability, "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." Also, WP:CHALLENGE says that, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." Because of this, I do believe that this article is not notable enough and verifiable enough to be a standalone article. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three unformatted links, almost no coverage. No charting. Need I say more?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't charted, no release history, and no information really. Suggest mentioning on the parent album article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with the two above. Tony (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nymf _hideliho! 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the sources are another wiki and videos. Doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nomination ℥^nding·start 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete because it is a page without sufficient arguments.Silencio faz bem • Talk2Me 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually very lenient when it comes to uncharted single/song-pages... But this is ridiculous! Not only is it very poorly constructed, but the only references consists of youtube, tangle.com, and wiki-answers! wiki-answers?? Seriously?! No, unless someone can heavily edit the page, I say delete completely, or just redirect to the mother-page (No Name Face), but only if it is an actual single from the album. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do I have to explain? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other users, this article has no content to be maintained. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 20:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Rp0211 Oz ^talk 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is not well written. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No charting data, Wiki Answers, YouTube, and Tangle references, and a whole lot of original research,is really what this article comes down to. Is there really anyway to make an argument against deletion? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. Also, I think I see a consensus lol -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proof is in the pudding, it's just not notable according to WP:MUSIC. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 03:13, 18 August 2011 (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.