Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilization (Justice song)

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. Also wrong forum, AfD is not for making merger proposals. This closure does not rule out a merger or redirect decided per talk page consensus. Sandstein 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization (Justice song)

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

Merge into artist's article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Could you please consider holding off this deletion for a couple of days so I could improve the article? cya Coolug (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion is normally open for 7 days, so you should have time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep Seems to be more notability at www.pitchfork.com, and it looks as though it is gaining more notability over time already, although possibly review in a month, as we don't want to be too

wp:current Bennydigital (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Fails
WP:NSONG. I quote, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter". A few articles in online industry rags do not confer sufficient notability for a stand alone article. And even if notable, the fact that the article offers almost no information means that it should be merged into the main article about the band. LK (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect I see your point, and suggest a merge into the main article for the next month (
WP:CRYSTALBALL) until it charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydigital (talk • contribs) 13:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I came here to read about it, so I think it's notable. --Pgp688 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is certainly noteworthy, and various references are made on other sites about it's anticipated release. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From
WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Since the article offers almost no information, it should be merged into the main article about the band. LK (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this discussion closed? It's been more than a week since it initially opened, and most votes were to "keep" the article. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:28, 1 April 2011 (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.