Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Now?

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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Now?

Of the eleven (proposed) standards at WP:SINGLE, the single does not meet one. ShadowHalo 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OMG it got #132 in one country! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while humming 'Who's crying now?' SkierRMH,08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass ~~all~~ none of the eleven criteria of WP:SINGLE, but #132 is pretty high considering the fact we have articles over non-charting singles, yet it still isn't in the Top 100. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, #132 in one country, with no other claim to importance, does not cut it.-- danntm ^T _C 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify, singles don't need to meet all eleven criteria, only two or three. —ShadowHalo 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charting single in a large country. Can be expanded somewhat with tracklistings from the retail single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SINGLE clearly states that it has to be in the Top 100 chart, #132 is close, but certainly doesn't pass that criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nice. WP:SINGLE is merely proposed, and seriously flawed, so I'm not compelled by it in the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of WP:SINGLE, why exactly is a song which charted number 132 in one country notable? That seems like it's rather trivial. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The question is why isn't it notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That isn't the question, but the answer is that it's not particularly hard to chart 132 in one country and not chart everywhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. And...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Because there is very little content that can be added to the article since there are nearly no (if any) sources for it. All the information in the article is contained in the infobox, and the only item in the infobox that wouldn't be found in the Tragic Kingdom article is the producer and maybe that chart position. —ShadowHalo 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And stubs are a problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, stubs are fine. However, this stub would (almost certainly) never be anything more than a stub, and all of its information would be found elsewhere. Were there some information that wouldn't be contained in Tragic Kingdom, then this could stay as a stub. But there isn't. —ShadowHalo 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added the tracklisting and cover. Two of the most important things, which makes this article keep worthy. More info will come along.

PS. I disagree with that 11 point list. Fans would want to keep this page, regardless of its peak position, it forms a part of the No Doubt discography, if only a small part, I know that would appy to any other artist with a fanbase. ShadowBoxer 09:35, 14 December 2006 (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.