Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 rediect to Icky Thump. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues
- 300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
not a single, not notable enough for seperate article, should be merged into album article LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Lemmey talk04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable and contains enough information to warrant its own article. ]
- talk 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good God. It's not even law. It just states that, previously, articles have been kept because Wikipedia isn't limited in size to the number of articles it can have. Second, have you ever considered that articles make up topics? Finally, give me a rational reason saying why this article is worthless and should be deleted. Monobi (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- talk 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good God. It's not even law. It just states that, previously, articles have been kept because Wikipedia isn't limited in size to the number of articles it can have. Second, have you ever considered that articles make up topics? Finally, give me a rational reason saying why this article is worthless and should be deleted. Monobi (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability; no indication of WHY this is notable in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per ]
- Redirect to Icky Thump, as a plausible search term. Compare with this recent AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is it necessary to have an AFD every time I come across an obviously non-notable album track? Can't I just redirect it to the album myself? indopug (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I would ]
- Delete or redirect this non-notable song to the album, if there is proof the album is notable. Edison (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am the writer of this article. It's a fairly new article and I can't devote 100% of my wikitime to it so I ask that it be given a chance to be written further. Grease Paint and Monkey Brains are not valid as Grease Paint had no cites at all before deletion. Note also that user:LukeTheSpook, user:Lemmey, user:Titanium Dragon, user:Lugnuts seem to have made more or less the same comments in this AFD as well as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I'm_Slowly_Turning_into_You without giving consideration to each individually. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to meet the criteria which it currently doesnt. I can't see any reason to assume this article will ever be detailed enough to the point of needing it's own article. --neonwhite user page talk 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria are you referring to? WP:MUSIC doesn't actually describe criteria but just rough guidelines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to meet the criteria which it currently doesnt. I can't see any reason to assume this article will ever be detailed enough to the point of needing it's own article. --neonwhite user page talk 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan on working on Icky Thump soon, so I will incorporate any useful info into that article. indopug (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this case it works much better as a separate article. If every track had a large description about it then it would make the Icky Thump article too big. So it makes more sense to have it wikilinked inside the article. A separate article lets you wikilink it on other articles like it currently is with a wikilink at You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told) as well as a wikilink at The White Stripes. Furthermore, there is a nice infobox that let's you navigate through the tracks. This is what wiki was made for. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most tracks on an album aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, however if there is suffient non-trivial information that is making the album article too long then a split would be necessary but that is not the case here. It's mostly trivial information from a review that could probably be linked to in the review links. --neonwhite user page talk 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion. As I mentioned before, I think that 31600 hits are a good measure a songs notability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect If you're "having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion", um, doesn't that imply that the song isn't notable (note that a big portion of those will be lyrics sites)? Anyway, the two useful sentences of information in the "300 MPH" article right now would be fine for Icky Thump. indopug (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I'm having trouble is that there is alot of hits and it's difficult to find the stuff that can be added to the article from such a large number of hits. I submit that for songs, the number of hits can be a judge of notability as I've mentioned above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect If you're "having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion", um, doesn't that imply that the song isn't notable (note that a big portion of those will be lyrics sites)? Anyway, the two useful sentences of information in the "300 MPH" article right now would be fine for Icky Thump. indopug (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion. As I mentioned before, I think that 31600 hits are a good measure a songs notability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most tracks on an album aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, however if there is suffient non-trivial information that is making the album article too long then a split would be necessary but that is not the case here. It's mostly trivial information from a review that could probably be linked to in the review links. --neonwhite user page talk 12:32, 30 April 2008 (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.