Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angels Working Overtime

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Working Overtime

Song did chart but only got to #35. Precedent among other country music articles is that most country songs that peaked below #20 should not get articles unless they prove exceptional notability beyond being by a notable artist. This article does not assert any form of notability beyond "it charted for a very brief period in 1999", and the only sources are a chart history and a link to the song's music video via CMT. What little verifiable content exists could easily be merged to the album. The article was initially unsourced so I redirected it, but the author undid the redirect and promised the addition of sources, which amounted to the two I already mentioned and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Everything's Gonna Be Alright. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as information would not fit with the content of an album page. Radio edit time and difference between the album version, info about the song's tempo and production, and the purpose of the song would not be at home on another page. As would a music video description; which includes director, backs up the song content, and the link to the video. The page is not a stub in anyway - as all that is missing is something in critical reception of the song. And I'm not sure how exactly you expect to reference any of the other information given (other than chart peak, and the video link); are people unable to watch the music video for themselves or listen to the song? I was able to pump more into this particular song than some of her more successful songs, such as "We Danced Anyway" which remains a stub. If there's enough info to keep this song from remaining a stub, and enough significant info to not fit with an album or artist page, then I think it should stay. Really the chart performance is only one of many factors - not being a popular hit on the charts doesn't discredit this song from featuring specific information. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a stub, and it has more sourced information than most song articles. Chart positions should not determine notability.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirement by virtue of charting; enough information exists for a sibstantial article. Rlendog (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (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.