Talk:I Can't Get Over You (Brooks & Dunn song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Country Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 9 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to I Can't Get Over You. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 9 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a general consensus here to disregard WP:SONGDAB and that there isn't a primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The Brooks & Dunn song is the only use of "I Can't Get Over You" to have its own page, clearly making it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There used to be another song but that article was deleted at AfD back in 2015. Station1 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: it may the only song we currently happen to have a full article on, but it's pretty obscure and it's definitely not the primary topic: it doesn't show up on the first page of results when I google for songs with that name, and it only has 2 hits among the first 40 results. I don't think we should move articles around each time an obscure song article gets crated or deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point of view directly contradicts the well-established naming convention at WP:SONGDAB: "(...) disambiguation is only required when multiple songs or albums of the same name have articles." 162 etc. (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point of view is just a reiteration of the basic guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the expectation (widely held though afaik not codified) that article titles should be stable. In this particular case, these seem to be at odds with the convention of WP:SONGDAB. – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is also contrary to WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever (...) there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." (emphasis mine.) 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of WP:DAB is: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. But you must be aware of that already, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for the move of the dab page but for its deletion. – Uanfala (talk)

@Uanfala: I take it that you're aware of the sorry history of SONGDAB and the local consensus there against the bit of WP:DAB that you have just cited, such as against Broadway musical songs. SONGDAB needs editing back in line with the rest of the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: this was only No.51 in 1999, but GBooks produces more results for the single by The Dramatics from on the 1976 Joy Ride (album). YouTube produces The Dramatics' single as well. In among a small forest of songs. No benefit to reader. Particularly with an almost identical title at Can't Get Over You. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet none of the other songs by that title have an article. This is the only exact match. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a well-known song. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the other songs are so important, why do none of them have articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not. None of them are. Wikipedia is a work in progress (why do so many people not seem to understand this?). Someone simply decided to write an article about this one before someone decided to write an article about any of the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uanfala, In ictu oculi and Necrothesp. The I Can't Get Over You disambiguation page lists eight bulleted entries for songs titled "I Can't Get Over You" and, although seven of those are WP:DABMENTIONS, the three-sentence stub delineating I Can't Get Over You (Brooks & Dunn song) does not appear to be sufficiently notable for primary topic. It should be also noted that, in the wake of this nomination, a closely-related one, featuring another three-sentence song stub — Can't Get Over You → Can't Get Over You (Maze song) — has been initiated at Talk:Can't Get Over You#Requested move 14 January 2023. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.