Talk:All I Ever Wanted (album)

All I Ever Wanted

Popjustice.com says the album is now called All I Ever Wanted, and that the guy who runs it says he was told that title by Kelly's record company. [2] 86.14.125.38 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Kelly Clarkson#Masquerade. At this point, we only have one (supposedly) reliable source for the title, so we'll have to keep that one, albeit with a careful wording. Cheers, Amalthea 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. Supposedly reliable. :-\ Shame on the Wall Street Journal. --Amalthea 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

not the Wall Street Journal's fault. Albums go through several titles before a final title is chosen. They had old information. Even when things are 'confirmed' they can change, which is more reason why wikipedia wants sources other than blogs and fansites, like directly from the label and artist management 76.109.42.17 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Album LEAKED !!!

hey the whole album has leaked from itunes norway !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S3o0dk94 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

this was an error on ITunes part, and the album is no longer available until the release date. LEaks are illegal, and psoting about them here will only encourage people to find them on the net rather than buying the album.. which is also illegal 76.109.42.17 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Album/Song leaks are not notible as per WP:ALBUM#LEAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alankc (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I Do Not Hook Up

It is going for radio adds on April 7, 2009. I have tried adding it earlier tonight and someone removed it EVEN THOUGH there was a clear reference link provided. Can anyone give me any reason why this is happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but how does your reference verify that it will be the second single, and that it will be released on April 7, 2009? As I understand it that only means that it will be on air from then on. --Amalthea 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kelly would not be releasing a "radio only" single at this point. If it is being released to radio, it is almost a guarantee it'll be the second single. In addition, the single cover has already been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit too speculative for my taste. From the horse's mouth: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. I wouldn't oppose adding information about the radio release to the article (although I'm not convinced of the reliablility of the source), but deducing that it will certainly be the next single is stretching the source one step too far.
Is the album cover you're referring to this one? By default, an article cover found on a blog site or forum is almost always fan made, and not the official cover. --Amalthea 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and I do agree we should wait for an official announcement. However, surely the link I had provided did give a radio release date? Is there any reason it cannot be added in the article as a song being released to radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. Some editors will question whether a US radio release is noteworthy enough, but I'm neutral in that regard. Cheers, Amalthea 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason Radio and Records isn't considered a reliable source by many is simply that it isn't an official source for the artist or their label, and information from them can be premature and changed thereafter. This causes questionability to the article itself and falls under crystal ball (and makes it look more like a fansite than an encycolpedia of factual history). People seem to forget wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and encycolpedia's are histiry referances, not future referances. Thge song may very well be a single, but until it is, anything can happen. Hope that clears a little up. Alankc (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Singles should only be added to articles when they actually are singles. It doesn't matter what the source for an upcoming single may be, things can change by thwe time the single is actually released. Clarkson has had this happen several times already. She, and people at her label have anonunced upcoming singles (You Thought Wrong, Addicted), only to release a totally differant song as the single isntead (and the songs announced never becoming a single). As for album cover art... That is never released to the public so far in advance. Official album art is released about 2 weeks prior tot he single release. That's simply how it is done. Alankc (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you Mr. Knowseverything, get OVER it "I Do Not Hook Up" is the next single, Kelly said that on the radio, and it will be released in April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.120.68 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarkson said in interviews it 'MIGHT' be. That confirms nothing. Until a single is offcially anounced by the record label, it is not official. If you don't like wikipedia guidelines, don't visit wikipedia. This isn't a fansite where rumors and 'what may be' gets added. Alankc (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being in denial. I was listening to KISS FM in early February, and Ryan Seacrest introduced Kelly, and she said she would premiere a new single to radio in April, 2009, and that it would be either "I Do Not Hook Up" or "Already Gone." Then a week later she reported in a news interview that on April 7, 2009, "I Do Not Hook Up" would be released to radio as the second single, with an official/digital release date of April 14, 2009. Get your facts straight before you go off on her. Have you been on Wikipedia for 6 and a half years? Didn't think so. Are you a NON-VANDALIZING editor? Didn't think so. Have you been a Kelly follower since the day she showed up on AI? Didn't think so. Look, I know what I am talking about! Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.120.68 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, i've been a wikipedia editor for three years, and a follow of Clarkson since AI. You're not even signed in to wikipedia, never mind following wikipedia guidelines which are very clear. Start a fansite and put what you want on it, here, either follow guidelines or don't do anything, it's pretty simple. The reasons the information continues to be reverted has been stated clearly, by mroe than one person, both here and in edit summaries. The person who began this discussion is not causing problems, however your attack has been reported. Alankc (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Toronto's biggest station, CHUM FM, has recently added a poll to ask viewers how they feel about the new single, "I Do Not Hook Up". Here is the link, http://www.chumfm.com/PopSites/New-Music/default.asp. I think it is safe to say it will be the second single off of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.200.46 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When it is a single, it can be added to the article. Alot can happen between now and then. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of history, not the future, with a few exceptions where special templates exist along with guidelines for such information. Since the single isn't notible yet, as it hasn't been released so it hasn't charted or impacted anything, none of the templates fit the song. Alankc (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is some video information for "I Do Not Hook Up", http://www.kellyclarksonexpress.yuku.com/topic/12532/t/Some-casting-info-for-next-video.html

that is not a reliable source for anything, and nowhere in the article does it say what song the video is for Alankc (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, stop being difficult. You need to face the facts that "I Do Not Hook Up" is the second single. Oh, I have one other question for you. What did you think of "Irvine"?Astroman1234 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

first several lines of album info

...are all in future-tense. Since this is a released album, this should be reworded.12.162.122.6 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Single

It is rumoured that it will be "I Don't Hook Up" I've heard it a couple of times on the radio in Australia. It's still uncomfirmed though. I think there is a possible chance that it will be "Already Gone" Look at the U.S. iTunes Top 100. As I write this message it sits at #52. Her only other song within the Top 100 is "My Life Would Suck Without You" Perhaps "Already Gone" may have gained some airplay or some other sort of promotion. Child Funk (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

just becausde a song gets airplay doesn't mean it will be a single. Clarkson has had non-singles make the charts before. Alankc (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case I Do Not Hook Up (single) has been re-created after being deleted several times. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I just nominated it for deletion. It stays. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

it's redirected to the album page. people need to read qikipedia guidelines before they start editting things. Even when a song is a single, it only gets it's own page when it's a notable single (charts well, huge critic reception, etc..) Alankc (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Charts *well* and "huge critic reception"? Reeeeeally? Tons of singles pages shouldn't exist then.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hot_(Heidi_Montag_song)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Don%27t_Waste_Your_Time

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sweet_Darlin%27

hay haaaay just a few examples. 98.168.204.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

I Do Not Hook Up now has it's own Wikipedia page, so I think the redirect should be changed from All I Ever Wanted (album) to I Do Not Hook Up (Kelly Clarkson song). Anyone agree?

Electropop genre

I have removed electropop from the infobox and per WP:BRD, I am bringing the discussion here. Arlonelle and their IP addresses 96.242.204.196 and 96.242.202.220 added electropop to the infobox without a reliable source. When removed based on no reliable sources, they added sources that did not say the album was electropop. When removed based on sources not backing up the genre, they reverted with this edit summary, "You're not even reading them.Remove electropop as one of the genres again and administrators will block you.A handful of collaborations with OneRepublic's Ryan Tedder have a more electro-infused sound." Yet this statement still does not say the album is electrop. Until such time that a reliable source can be found to say the song is electropop, the genre should not be added to the infobox. Aspects (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone Citation

Kelly has announced that "Already Gone" will be the third single, but I haven't read any interview where she confirmed it as such. Is there a reason why there is no citation given in the "Already Gone" portion of this Wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.202.249 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

no, no she didn't, she said 'it might be a single'.. and even so, until the record label offcially announces it, it's not a single and not notabile as one for wikipedia People jsut need to listen better to what is said and pay closer attention to those illegally taken cell phone video's from concerts, then elarn that jsut because an artist says something, doesn't mean it's what will happen. Clarkson has said a few songs 'will be a single' that enver were.Alankc (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone release & single

I am sick of the people who have stated that "Already Gone" was released on June 25. The song was confirmed as the third single, however there is currently no release date. People are using the 25th as an excuse for the release date because that is when it was announced as the next single. THERE IS NO RELEASE DATE ANNOUNCED YET! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Whoever keeps putting "Already Gone" in the other songs section should seriously stop. "Already Gone" has been confirmed as the third single alright...god.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk)

Already Gone hasn't been released yet (as of July 2nd), so it doesn't belong under singles without a future single template until it is a released single. unfortunatly, everyone wants to edit wikipedia without reading guidelines. Alankc (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Alankc, you have been on my case for years. Yes, everyone does want to edit Wikipedia without reading guidelines, like the two of us. However, that is a personal attack and I have the feeling that I should report you, but I won't because I am mature, and am sick of your harrassment. I don't understand why "Already Gone" has a section, yet most of the info for the single is under OTHER SONGS...no! Come on, if it is about "Already Gone" and "Already Gone" has a section it should be under "Already Gone" and not OTHER SONGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebobelmodude (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I made it very clear why.. it's a future single, not a released single yet. if you want it in a section, use a future single template, it's very simple, and wikipedia guidelines. If you don't liek the guidelines, discuss it with wikipedia,l not me. Alankc (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you just do me a favor though and stop harassing me! I have reported you, and there will be something coming to you soon. I don't care that you have the "Stupid Original Barnstar", but that doesn't mean that you can harass me. It already has a section anyway so why is all the information not in its section?

who's harrassing you? revert edits you make that don't belong is not harrassment. and again, the song is not yet a single, it's a future single, if you want to include the future single template with it on the page, that's fine, otherwise, the info about it being tyhe third single will wait until it is a single.. Read your talk page, you have a few comments from others with such warnings, not by me, including one from wikipedia itself for not signing your comments (which shows you're not aware of wikipedia editting guidelines,, and should read a little about it, then your edits won't be reverted as much). I'm done with this conversation, the wikipedia administrators can handle it from here Alankc (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone has now been added with proper template, it wasn't that difficult, and would have saved everyone a lot of yelling. When the song IS a single, actually released... starting the day of the release, the future single template can be removed. You can all stop vandalizing the page and trying to make it into a fan site now :) Alankc (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Alankc, HAPPY BIRTHDAY! And I am not being facetious. Anyway, although I think you can be extremely arrogant, I wanted to say that the block has made me think about all the mistakes I have made on Wikipedia. I want to apologize, and especially to you. Although you have done mean things to me, I have done the same. This whole argument was dumb, and since we edit the same pages, I was wondering, could you help me with Wikipedia? I have read up on rules, but I'm confused. Would you please teach me? Thank you Spongebobelmodude (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk)

I didn't block you, i'm not an admin here Alankc (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't Let Me Stop You

Whomever is adding "Don't Let Me Stop You" as the fourth single should stop. Kelly has never (as far as I know) claimed it was the next single, and even if she did, until the label announces it, it's just a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.194.41 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what pisses me off. I live in New Zealand and Don't Let Me Stop You was the fourth single. It was played on virtually every radio station and promoted in adverts as the new single from all i ever wanted. I know it wasn't the world wide single but it was at least a promo single here in New Zealand. How can you argue with that???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.20.53 (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

People keep adding this as being "confirmed" by Kelly Clarkson but never providing a source. I removed it today to have it added back in without a source or an edit summary less than 45 minutes later. Now that we have this discussion here we can hopefully lead people here and if there is a confirmation of the single then it can be added in the article. Aspects (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The fourth single rumor started from a random blog. so far, there have been four songs supppsedly to be the next single. Clarkson has said at concerts there will be another single, but has not said what song, and very often what she says doesn't happen (the label does something differant).. She is also working on her next album already which she hopes to release at the end of 2010 (there is only one good source of this info and it's on the main article), which also doesn't mean there will be an album when she hopes, but if that's the plan, it's not likely to have another single between now and then. < just some fyi on the subject).

I requested the page be semi-protected due to these constant edits (and it has been), hopefully it will cut down on it a bit from the ip addresses. Alan - talk 04:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Demos

Why don't anyone put anything about the demos recorded in acoustic "Close Your Eyes", "With A Little Bit Of Luck" and "One Day" this three tracks include "Ready" that was the only one that is on the record, all this songs were Country and Rock influenced tracks (included "Ready") but later "Ready" again the only one that make it to the recod end like a pop-rock song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.227.209 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

because those three tracks weren't on the album and it's unencyclopedic. There were a lot more demo's than those 4 that were leaked. Alan - talk 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Start Class

I think "All I Ever Wanted" has already uploaded from class "Start" to (at least) "C-Class" Tbhotch (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Long Shot: Fourth Single?

Toronto's largest Top 40 station CHUM FM have been playing Kelly's "Long Shot" repeatedly. They've announced it's Kelly new single! Granted, we cannot post it as we have no official confirmation from Kelly's label, but it's something to keep an eye out for. Here's a link to the CHUM FM's radio playlist for Kelly, http://www.chumfm.com/Music/Playlist/Playlist.aspx?type=1&sstr=Kelly%20Clarkson&tf=20&df=0&tt=21&dt=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.194.41 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

upcoming single get added when officially announced by label or management. Even if the artist says on a social network there will be another single, it doesn't mean it will happen. So far on Twitter alone, Clarkson has said they are aiming for September for the next single, the following day, she said there may be a next single from the current album (either I Wan tyou or If I Can't Have you, she only gave the first and alst letters of a song).. Fact is, she doesn't even know until the Label decides. For all anyone knows, Clarkson was just teasing her fans. Alan - talk 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said we can't post it as it's not confirmed by her label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.194.41 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I Ever Wanted single references

I have removed All I Ever Wanted as being the next single because neither source provided, [3] or [4], are reliable sources. I have been reverted without an explanation or edit summary, so per WP:BRD I have started the discussion here so these people can discuss these changes, and I am going to change it back to the last version before the challenged sources were brought into the article. Aspects (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Either single will come, sooner or later, from this or another album Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem now is, All I Ever Wanted has been named the next single from the current album, but, there's nothing in print released from the record label or management, the most official sources would be Clarkson's own verified twitter account, or radio station drop lists like the sources provided, none of which can be considered reliable. I personally prefer articles not be created, and songs/albums not be added until a set release from the label is out there, but we all know fans are going to come on here and add what they want anyway (as they always do). Anything we come up with for this one, will be a battle with ip addresses non-stop until the label actually does a press release. On the bright side, I did find a sock puppet through all of this.. haha) Alan - talk 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi why can't we at least say All I Ever Wanted is EXPECTED to be the next single????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.20.53 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• because: Crystal Ball Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MY SOURCE IS http://content.usatoday.com/communities/idolchatter/post/2010/02/monday-morsels-fantasia-on-lockdown-new-kelly--adam-singles-daughtry-goes-platinum/1

If you except sales numbers from usa today, then why not this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.20.53 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 On hold, is this a reliable source? Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference or source in that article to make it a reliable source.. in fact, it's not an article, it's a blog on the usatoday site. Though it is true, All I Ever Wanted is the next single, but so far, nothing from the label has been printed, it's only been mentinos by Kelly on Twitter, and small sniplet mentions in random articles. The song will be added to Wikipedia eventually, but for now, there hasn't been a good source to cite for it that is acceptable by wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps an administrator judgement on lapsing the guidelines could be done, but if it is, crystal balls would pop up on a million more articles. My feelings ont he matter are fans should stick to their fansites with this stuff until something is officially released and it can be added to the articles properly.. stop using wikipedia as a fansite Alan - talk 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SO THEN. You should delete all statements from USA TODAY IDOL CHATTER.... because it is according to you "a blog". Funny thing is virtually all sales data which is put on wiki for american idol has idol chatter for its source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.20.53 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Idol Chatter is a legitimate source: it's a news blog, published by a reliable newspaper. From WP:RS:"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."—Kww(talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks Kww.. i'll revert the edits back with a summary edit explaining: NOTE TO IP'S: stop having hissy fits, this is why we have talk pages. Alan - talk 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hissy fits? What is funny is I was right all along. Fine you needed to finalise the source as acceptable - I Understand that. But do not call me a sock puppet and then report me with your strange theories and ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.20.53 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you were right the whole time, why did you make this edit, [5], saying the next single was "I Want You"? Aspects (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are such a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.40.13 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unoffical Singles

Hi can someone explain to me if radio stations are allowed to play songs that are not released by either the artist or record companies?

For example in New Zealand virtually every pop station starting playing Don't Let Me Stop You, describing it as the new single. Now ZM is playing "Ready" every six hours or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza817 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Radio can play songs that aren't singles. In the case of Don't Let Me Stop You, Radio stations in some area's of the world wanted it to be the next single and were pushing for it, giving it airplay. Not all songs on radio are singles, in fact, most rock radio stations play more non-singles than singles, where pop radio plays more singles because singles are more 'popular' which after all, is what pop in pop radio and pop genre stands for, but again, if certain markets want to push a non-single to try and get it to be a single via lots of airplay, they do have that right, as long as they remain within the regulations (such as in the US, radio stations can't play a single artist more than 3 times in a 4 hour time period to be fair to other artists, not including duets of course). Alan - talk 05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I've noticed in the last couple of weeks that in Australia, a large number of radio stations are playing "Cry" as a promotional single for Kelly's All i Ever Wanted Tour...some of them are saying it as a single. Is it possible that "Cry" is a promotional single for the tour just like when "Don't Waste Your Time" was released when Kelly did her last tour (My December)??? Cause theres no word from Sony BMG so are thye playing it just to try to get it a single or what??? im so confused lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.131.212 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and Aussie obviously have rules of their own lol. In New Zealand Don't Let Me Stop You was kellys fourth single on all major radio stations and now "ready" is quickly becoming and described by the DJs as kellys fifth single. I'm pretty sure they have released these singles to aid ticket sales for the tour at vector arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.37.116 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

so called 'radio singles' aren't official singles, it's ismply radio stations playing the songs, and calling them singles. They weren't released to radio as a single as most people think.. radio can play any song they want to play. Alan - talk 04:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All I Ever Wanted references

All I Ever Wanted is indeed the new single, but the 3 references given in the article about it's chart position are either fake or unofficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.103.93 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All I Ever Wanted (song)

Can we please make a seperate page for All I Ever Wanted the single? It has been out for almost a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.37.116 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When the song becomes notable enough, if it does, it will get it's own page. Alan - talk 04:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

aren't the charting positions listed on the AIEW album page enough significance now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.96.89 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Compnant charts don't count for much. They make up the major charts, which is what counts. Wikipedia even has a guideline that componant charts are NOT supposed to be put in the articles. since they shouldn't be in the article, and it's the only charts the song is on at the moment, the answer is not yet. i'd give it another week or so and see if it gets on the hot 100. Alan - talk 02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that it has an iTunes and radio release date? It even has its own single cover. Some other singles/songs here doesn't even have one but they have their own article/page. Also, the song already has radio impact... why do we need to wait if it enters the Hot 100 (which eventually it will)? Some songs don't even enter the Hot 100 but they have their own page and some don't even experience this kind of delay just to have its own article. 203.87.204.170 (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.204.170 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's (AIEW) already Bubbling under Hot 100... It actually No. 15 last week and now No. 6 in the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Charts thus deserving of its own article now. 203.87.204.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

source? (billboard.biz not a WP:Reliable source) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have those same problem with Sober and Don't Waste Your Time seeing that they still have their own articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.204.170 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Because those songs have Music video and more charts. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 13:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sober has no music video and has only reached No. 10 in the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Charts 203.87.204.170 (talk)

But have a better background, an Official Single Cover, a track listing and a Pop 100 Chart. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is enough coverage (barely).. but NO OFFICIAL SINGLE COVER, they are all fan-made. There most likely won't be a physical single for the song.. It also hasn't charted on a major chart (yet, I doubt it will, but anything can happen). Alan - talk 06:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The single cover is not fan-made... It's the actual cover sent by RCA for the radio adds and iTunes release. You can look for it on iTunes. 203.87.204.170 (talk)

Promotional singles

Why Promotional singles cannot be on the article? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Singles from All I Ever Wanted

1. "Don't Let Me Stop You"
   Released: February 15, 2010 (AU)
2. "Cry"
   Released: March 12, 2010 (GER)
3. "Long Shot"
   Released: March 13, 2010 (CAN)
4. "Ready"
   Released: March 14, 2010 (NZ)

Ref.

Agree... The promotional singles deserved to be, at least, mentioned in the article if they would not be given their own articles. I've seen it done on Alanis Morrisete's Discography and singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.204.170 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

promotional singles aren't actually singles. They can be mentioned in the description of the article, but shouldn't be lsited with the official singles. Same goes with the discography page. If anything they are 'other charted songs', if they charted on a major chart. To do anything else with them just adds confusion. Alan - talk 06:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Album Certification

According to this picture, the album was recently certified Platinum in the US. I think that should be noted. July 22, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneth13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures are not reliable sources. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneth13 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Becuase this image itself does not state something. Please read WP:RS, and in this case RIAA is the most reliable source. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cry

Cry isn't a single in Germany. The source only cites the album track but for making it an official single, a seperate release is necessary. Amazon.de also doesn't name Cry as a single of Kelly Clarkson. The singles from this album've been Suck Without You, Hook Up and Already Gone! --79.199.28.56 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is not protected --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cry was released separately as a single in Germany on March 12, 2010. Amazon.de Source Itunes Germany Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.197.195 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)