Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambulance (Blur song)
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 merge to ]
Ambulance (Blur song)
Fails
talk) 04:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- Merge to Think Tank (Blur album). It comes close to notability, based on the number of sourced comments and facts in the article, but merge or redirect to the album is preferred over deletion for songs of questionable notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe that it should be kept as their is a fair amount of detail covering the songs musical style. I don't see why it fails NSONG. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well sourced. Why delete something so well written and sourced? Also it seems to have enough reviews as well to prove it had a fair amount of media attention. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, ey 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge to WP:NSONG has several criteria which are not met by this article. The song has never 1. been ranked high on a national or notable music chart 2. won significant awards 3. been performed by several notable artists. I still feel much of the style information can be suitably included in the album article with out being lost. Mkdwtalk 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - remember Wikipedia is place of subjectivity, you seem to hold very objective rules. A lot of media attention is all that a song really needs for an article. Those rules seem to be put in place to help prove that, not set the rules for a song article in stone. This song has plenty of coverage and if you're really questioning it, I've heard Ambulance on a radio multiple times, I'm not even a fan of Blur and I know the song well. I could find more citations proving it had substantial media coverage if that helps it stay up. Hey being a single, charting, winning awards, and being covered makes a song worthy of an article, why does almost every Beatles song ever have an article, even their rarities and b-sides? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about ]
- I just fixed the link to the xfm page (best to put a deadlink template in rather than claim that it "does not exist") and I dont see why the fact that stylus magazine no longer runs makes it any less of a reliable source. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, Stylus is a notable example, but I think if the song were truly notable then one of its three sources should not be from a defunct publication whose main focus is music. Finally, I generally don't edit articles that I argue for deletion to avoid the perception of COI. If the article is kept, I often come back to tag areas of problems or concerns that I had. Mkdwtalk 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just fixed the link to the xfm page (best to put a deadlink template in rather than claim that it "does not exist") and I dont see why the fact that stylus magazine no longer runs makes it any less of a reliable source. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about ]
- Comment - I like the article too, but honestly the majority of the content is borrowed from Think_Tank_(Blur_album). As nominator, I am now ambivalent. I think the major content for Ambulance should be consolidated into one place.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Think Tank. There isn't really enough here that a standalone article is needed. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: This song is already almost a decade old, there are still hardly any 3rd party sources about it as of 2012 -RoseL2P (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to have enough credible and sourced reviews to stay up, also it's age is not a factor. It's independently sourced enough as it is. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2012 (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.