770:. The background section is almost entirely about the album (and quite similar to the one for the album and those in many of the songs from it), and as noted by Till, none of the sources give significant coverage of the song. As its charting amounts to one week's sales in South Korea of 1,840 digital downloads the week the album dropped (16 of 17 songs from the deluxe edition charted, 15 only in that week, and this was 14th at number 172), I don't believe it demonstrates notability. The content and notability issues are very similar to another song from
228:- Don't try and make it sound like you are trying to pay a compliment and then AFD this article, Wikipedian Penguin. For a non-single, quite a lot of reviewers spoke about the song and made comparisons to others. And don't give me that crap about focus on the album. 90% of all Critical reception sections are composed of song reviews within an album review. An album review
643:
Aaron--Calvin? Please tone it down a bit and stop taking this personally, please. I don't think
Penguin did anything wrong by the letter of the law, though proposing "merge" in an AfD is a bit of a clunker, and there is no reason to let this get out of hand. Michig, I agree with your point, certainly
200:
Clearly the author has done his best at writing this article. But if this is all that can be said about "Best of Me" (minus the
Background section, which does not have direct relevance to the song), we probably do not need this article. The information -- of which there isn't a substantial amount --
331:
It did not receive significant coverage, as I'd implied above and Till has stressed below. There's little information to warrant this article. True, charting is only an indication that the topic may possibly be notable because of its commercial success, but not always, as is the case with "Best of
626:
merely a discussion to talk about your concern. Don't try and pass it off as that, because it certainly isn't washing with me. If you had of wanted to discuss this, you could have posted on my user talk or the talk page of the article. You're obviously not the editor I thought you were.
473:
Aaron, may I request you not to take "Dance for You" as an example here as it is a very unsuitable choice to defend BOM. My point is only that DFY had a music video and the article was created only after the music video was released, in fact nearly a month after its release.
598:
be the best solution; my guess was merge, but I wasn't sure. I can understand your frustration since a few of your contributions have been brought to question, but please stay focused on the matter and stop thinking I use double standards.
169:
828:
page. If the most any publication can say about a song is (1) brief, and (2) contained in an album (p)review, I'm inclined to think the album page is an appropriate place to contain info on such material; i.e., it does not appear to meet
232:
the songs on the album. And it is contradictory to nominate for deletion and then say it should be merged. Why not place merge tags and allow for a discussion on the talk page? It passes notability guidelines at GNG.
554:
critical response section. The background section is not even relevant to the song, so we can't move that. But if bringing this up at the talk page is still the best thing to do, we can withdraw this AfD.
163:
733:
95:
90:
99:
550:
sure if a merge would be the best solution. I'm also considering redirecting as an option because there's hardly any information to merge. Much of the info is already covered in the
122:
82:
779:
249:
I can't help it if you take my nomination personally. We have two mediocre-length paragraphs of information that is actually directly related to the song. That is not passing
129:
449:
on one chart did they. Well in that case Till, all critical reception sections are trivial, as they are all made up of album reviews. An album review reviews the
184:
86:
151:
410:
Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage. And "Popcrush" could hardly be considered a reliable source.
782:; the discussion there, notably by the people who weren't involved in the article—Gongshow, Till, and Carabinieri—has helped inform my opinion.
644:
on principle, but IMO we might as well let this run and if "merge" is the outcome, so be it. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Thank you.
78:
70:
803:- lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and there's no indication of importance or notability apart from the album: doesn't meet
145:
883:
858:
816:
791:
745:
712:
690:
676:
653:
638:
617:
589:
573:
541:
512:
489:
464:
432:
350:
326:
310:
287:
271:
244:
219:
64:
141:
17:
800:
758:
700:
51:
807:. Since it's discussed by critics in the context of the album, and there's not thousands of words to be said about it, merge. --
191:
370:. The song lacks the significant coverage that is required for a standalone article. Let's take a look at the sources shall we.
315:
Because it passes each bullet point. Charting, or rather chart position, isn't an issue here. It's not a full requirement. —
578:
So you listen to someone else and not me then, Wikipedian
Penguin, even though I said this above and you ignored it. —
902:
40:
157:
485:
812:
659:
600:
556:
333:
293:
254:
202:
898:
787:
60:
36:
201:
is all based on sources that focus on the album as a whole, so a merge is probably the best solution. —
622:
No, you opened this AFD in order to have the article deleted. That is the aim of your action. This is
881:
636:
587:
478:
462:
324:
285:
242:
177:
834:
849:
808:
804:
767:
398:
Gets a tiny paragraph (like all the other songs) as part of the album. No significant coverage.
775:
741:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
897:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
783:
708:
686:
649:
537:
56:
830:
250:
873:
628:
579:
454:
316:
277:
234:
407:
Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
840:
442:
441:
What position a song charts at has nothing to do with it. No one said anything when "
737:
116:
704:
682:
645:
533:
416:
Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
413:
Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
419:
Gets one trivial sentence as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
503:
423:
498:
Regardless, the chart position does not address the issue of a lack of '
401:
Gets 2 lines as part of coverage of the album. No significant coverage.
762:). I don't see that this song has independent notability outside of
395:
Album liner notes is a primary source → not indepdendent of the song
868:- If the outcome is merge, I will need time to merge the info to
703:
as the content about this song can easily be summarized there. --
532:. Merges should be proposed on article talk pages, not at AfD. --
891:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
422:
Merely verifies a mediocre chart position, no coverage at all.
681:
Fair enough. No objection to letting this run its course. --
833:(in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources) or
658:
I appreciate both Michig's and Drmies' input on this. —
475:
112:
108:
104:
176:
734:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
190:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
905:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
766:, and don't believe that it qualifies under
732:Note: This debate has been included in the
778:", which I had nominated last week for AfD
731:
476:This was how the article stood back then.
445:" was created and had only charted at
594:I opened this discussion to see what
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
79:Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)
71:Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)
502:coverage from third party sources.
404:Music retailer → no coverage at all
24:
801:Lotus (Christina Aguilera album)
701:Lotus (Christina Aguilera album)
52:Lotus (Christina Aguilera album)
1:
884:21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
859:21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
824:(slight/as desired) into the
817:13:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
792:00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
746:16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
713:19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
691:19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
677:19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
654:18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
639:16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
618:11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
590:11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
574:10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
542:08:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
513:12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
490:11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
465:11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
433:01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
351:17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
327:16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
311:11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
288:11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
272:01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
245:01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
220:23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
65:08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
922:
392:No mention of "Best of Me"
389:No mention of "Best of Me"
386:No mention of "Best of Me"
383:No mention of "Best of Me"
380:No mention of "Best of Me"
377:No mention of "Best of Me"
894:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
546:To be honest, I'm not
453:. Think about it. —
276:It does pass GNG. —
695:And I would go for
756:(with redirect to
857:
748:
292:Explain how so. —
913:
896:
878:
856:
853:
847:
844:
838:
671:
670:
633:
612:
611:
584:
568:
567:
510:
482:
459:
430:
345:
344:
321:
305:
304:
282:
266:
265:
239:
214:
213:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
48:The result was
34:
921:
920:
916:
915:
914:
912:
911:
910:
909:
903:deletion review
892:
874:
851:
848:
842:
839:
754:Delete or merge
666:
665:
660:
629:
607:
606:
601:
580:
563:
562:
557:
504:
480:
455:
424:
340:
339:
334:
317:
300:
299:
294:
278:
261:
260:
255:
235:
209:
208:
203:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
919:
917:
908:
907:
887:
886:
862:
861:
819:
794:
750:
749:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
693:
679:
661:
602:
558:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
493:
492:
468:
467:
436:
435:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
372:
371:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
335:
295:
256:
204:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
918:
906:
904:
900:
895:
889:
888:
885:
882:
879:
877:
871:
867:
864:
863:
860:
855:
854:
846:
845:
836:
832:
827:
823:
820:
818:
814:
810:
809:Colapeninsula
806:
802:
798:
797:Partial merge
795:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
760:
755:
752:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
730:
729:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
678:
675:
672:
669:
664:
657:
656:
655:
651:
647:
642:
641:
640:
637:
634:
632:
625:
621:
620:
619:
616:
613:
610:
605:
597:
593:
592:
591:
588:
585:
583:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
566:
561:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
526:
525:
514:
511:
509:
508:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
483:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
466:
463:
460:
458:
452:
448:
444:
443:Dance for You
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
429:
428:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
369:
366:
365:
352:
349:
346:
343:
338:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
320:
314:
313:
312:
309:
306:
303:
298:
291:
290:
289:
286:
283:
281:
275:
274:
273:
270:
267:
264:
259:
252:
248:
247:
246:
243:
240:
238:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
215:
212:
207:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
893:
890:
875:
869:
865:
850:
841:
825:
821:
796:
771:
763:
757:
753:
696:
673:
667:
662:
630:
623:
614:
608:
603:
595:
581:
570:
564:
559:
551:
547:
528:
527:
506:
505:
499:
456:
450:
446:
426:
425:
367:
347:
341:
336:
318:
307:
301:
296:
279:
268:
262:
257:
236:
229:
225:
216:
210:
205:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
49:
47:
31:
28:
784:BlueMoonset
500:significant
164:free images
57:Crisco 1492
776:Cease Fire
548:completely
899:talk page
835:WP:NSONGS
738:• Gene93k
50:merge to
37:talk page
901:or in a
805:WP:NSONG
768:WP:NSONG
123:View log
39:or in a
866:Comment
668:PENGUIN
609:PENGUIN
565:PENGUIN
342:PENGUIN
302:PENGUIN
263:PENGUIN
230:reviews
211:PENGUIN
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
831:WP:GNG
705:Michig
683:Michig
646:Drmies
534:Michig
479:Jivesh
332:Me". —
251:WP:GNG
142:Google
100:delete
876:AARON
872:. —
870:Lotus
843:Gong
826:Lotus
822:Merge
772:Lotus
764:Lotus
759:Lotus
697:Merge
631:AARON
596:would
582:AARON
552:Lotus
457:AARON
451:songs
368:Merge
319:AARON
280:AARON
237:AARON
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
55:. —
16:<
852:show
813:talk
788:talk
780:here
742:talk
709:talk
687:talk
650:talk
538:talk
529:Keep
507:Till
486:Talk
481:1205
427:Till
226:Keep
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
61:talk
799:to
774:, "
699:to
663:WP:
627:—
624:not
604:WP:
560:WP:
447:200
337:WP:
297:WP:
258:WP:
253:. —
233:—
206:WP:
192:TWL
121:– (
880:•
837:.
815:)
790:)
744:)
736:.
711:)
689:)
652:)
635:•
586:•
540:)
488:)
461:•
323:•
284:•
241:•
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
63:)
811:(
786:(
740:(
707:(
685:(
674:·
648:(
615:·
599:—
571:·
555:—
536:(
484:(
348:·
308:·
269:·
217:·
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.