Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sur Moon

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sur Moon

Big Sur Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Article for an individual song that has no indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. unsourced. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song) but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The song, originally released on

² 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage
  talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-
  ² 05:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The new sources consist entirely of trivial mentions in reviews of the album the song is on. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NSONGS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I see that Hexachord redirected the article under discussion at AfD when consensus had not yet been reached, so I reverted that to facilitate discussion. Not that a merge might not have been the right thing to do. I can't judge the actual notability or the significance of the mentions, but I do think combination articles tend to be a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the other songs on the same template seem to also redirect although that could be a sign of conspiracy. A 1998 song though should have more coverage if it's that notable. a summary elsewhere would be fine for now.
  -- Banjeboi 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated
  ² 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And, for that matter, the closing admin should note that
    talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete seems to fail
  talk) 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This shouldn't be at AFD if I'm reading WP:NSONGS correctly and should be a redirect. Thus procedural keep as the wrong forum for the discussion (talk page being the right one). Further, sources in the article would appear to be near the GNG. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the album. This is not a keep vote.
  talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (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.