Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sooner or Later (Aaron Carter song)

Sooner or Later (Aaron Carter song)

Sooner or Later (Aaron Carter song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I had redirected to the album as WP:ATD. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV of the song in multiple WP:RS to indicate passing of WP:NSONG, just one low charting in a single country and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• More info: From the talk page post-PROD, my take on if/how the current sources establish notability:

1. Vegas Creative YouTube: WP:PRIMARY, and maybe WP:PROMO.
2. Sanook: Primarily promotional / release-focused, not an in‑depth analysis.
3. Knox News: WP:TRIVIALMENTION
4. Entertainment Weekly: WP:TRIVIALMENTION (list)
5. AllMusic: WP:TRIVIALMENTION
6. Daily Orange: WP:TRIVIALMENTION
7. FIMI: Establishes charting
8. FIMI: Establishes charting (redundant with 7)
9. Golden Gate: WP:PROMO (published by producer)
10. RIAA: No mention of song
11. Broadway World: WP:TRIVIALMENTION
12. Ultatop: WP:TRIVIALMENTION
13. AppleMusic: WP:ITEXISTS
14. FIMI: Establishes gold cert (also redundant with 7 & 8)

• Comment: I'll leave the notability assessment to others, but if this song is deemed non-notable, then the page should be redirected to Love (Aaron Carter EP) and not deleted altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Another Believer Please review my comment below when you have the time. I believe my argument is correct, and I have also incorporated your sources, which means the article now includes additional reliable references. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed on the redirect to album instead of deletion. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: I hope everyone is well. I believe the nomination of this article for deletion is, at the very least, misguided, and may stem from a misunderstanding of the difference between trivial mention and significant coverage as explained in Wikipedia:Notability. A trivial mention is something that adds no meaningful information and can be omitted without affecting the article. In this case, however, the sources cited are not trivial. For example, BroadwayWorld reports the streaming numbers the song achieved after its release, while Ultratop indicates that the track received a Tip status, meaning it did not enter the main chart but still showed measurable commercial activity. Both sources therefore address the song's commercial performance. Likewise, outlets such as Sanook, Knox News, Entertainment Weekly, AllMusic, and The Daily Orange provide critical commentary discussing the song's style, characteristics, and comparisons with other releases, which clearly constitutes meaningful coverage rather than a trivial reference. It is also important to note that a source does not need to focus exclusively on the song in order to count as significant coverage; the guideline itself states that it "need not be the main topic of the source material". Additionally, a song does not need to be commercially successful to merit an article as long as it meets the notability criteria. For instance, the article about Madonna's EP Like a Virgin & Other Big Hits! is rated as a Good Article (GA-class) even though many of its references are simply verification sources, aside from the commercial performance section.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. The song clearly meets the notability criteria for songs and singles, as it has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources. The mentions in the references are not trivial; they include critics' analyses that discuss the song in context rather than simply mentioning it in passing. In total, the article cites 17 sources addressing relevant aspects of the track, and with the exception of the reference used to identify the music video's director (which comes from a YouTube video by Vegas, likely associated with Sony Music), the coverage comes from multiple, non-trivial, and independent published sources, which aligns with the notability standards.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's better to include the points were I think you were wrong in your interpretation.

1. Sanook: (Not trivial.) An independent source discussing the release of the song and describing its style.
2. Knox News: (Not trivial.) An independent source in which a critic discusses the song’s style and gives their opinion on it.
3. Entertainment Weekly: (Not trivial.) An independent source in which a critic discusses the song’s style and gives their opinion on it.
4. AllMusic: (Not trivial.) An independent source in which a critic discusses the song’s style and gives their opinion on it.
5. Daily Orange: (Not trivial.) An independent source in which a critic discusses the song’s style and gives their opinion on it.
6. FIMI: Establishes charting
7. FIMI: Establishes charting (redundant with 7)
8. RIAA: No mention of song but since it was written in the article about it, the RIAA serves as a source for that statement.
9. Broadway World: (Not trivial) It reports the streaming numbers the song achieved after its release
10. Ultatop: (Not trivial) It reports the performance in Belgium (Tip).
11. FIMI: Establishes gold cert

— Note to closing admin: Markus WikiEditor (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Keep The song clearly meets the notability criteria for songs and singles, as it has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources, thus satisfying WP:GNG. Furthermore, the song charted on a national sales chart for at least two weeks.TheWikiholic (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TheWikiholic (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) WidgetKid ^Converse 00:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even know this was forbidden. I sent him a message because I've seen him revert inflated claims many times and improve articles related to music, so I assumed he knows the criteria for notable records. I should have asked him if he could participate in the discussion instead. My bad. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Both the article as well as the first comment here by Markus WikiEditor are likely AI-generated. This is a pattern across their articles; see for instance this article, which contains what is almost certainly a chatbot response in Portuguese. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Gnomingstuff, I have been noticing that LLMs like to include the names of the reviewers, whereas most editors don't. WidgetKid ^Converse 06:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Widgetkid Could you pointed out some other thing besides including the name of the reviewer that looks like ai in the article? Thank you. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gnomingstuff All the articles I have seen on Wikipedia include the names of the reviewers, for example Madonna (album). I don't understand why this was labeled as AI-generated. I am trying to write in a straightforward manner in the article. Could you please explain what the problem is? Markus WikiEditor (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't ping me multiple times about the same thing.

  As far as why it was labeled as AI-generated, was it AI-generated? Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  As I told you here, I use it to improve some sentences, as I did here. I believe that in this way there should be no problem using ChatGPT or other tools. When you added the first tag on one of the articles, I thought you were saying that the entire article was AI-generated, also referring to possible hallucinated information and fictitious references, which did not happen in Sooner or Later or another article. The content was researched and the references are correct. I started writing in a more straightforward way, as in the Sooner or Later article, thus avoiding AI tags, but there was still an issue because, apparently, include the authors' names looks the article is "likely AI-generated". Markus WikiEditor (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Love (Aaron Carter EP). Not a notable song, and charts and certifications do not make something automatically notable. NMUSIC is pretty clear about this, actually. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources (which there doesn't seem to be), then this should not have an article. RedShellMomentum 23:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  The reviews are not notable for you? The release mention in the article of Sanook, and the others I listed too? The NMUSIC said that significant coverage doesn’t mean the song has to be the main topic of the article. Anyway, these rules are strange. Certifications and chart positions end up being disregarded, but if an alternative band that no one cares about gets three reviews, the article is accepted. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SatnaamIN (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• redirect to the album. Source 1 is the only one that really talks about the song. Source 19 is simply a directory listing. Most of the reviews given are about the album, not this song. The album would seem to have more notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Love (Aaron Carter EP) as the preferred WP:ATD option here; I concur with the analysis of the sources cited above as not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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.