Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy\Send Them

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. I'll R3 the redirect. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy\Send Them

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

The article title is clearly wrong, but this AfD is primarily about the single itself, which doesn't seem to warrant its own page. There is no significant coverage of its own that shows it warrants a page outside of the album. — Timneu22 · talk 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest if you vote "keep", you suggest the proper title for this. — Timneu22 · talk 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult. I'd suggest that the article should only be about Entropy, and be called Entropy (DJ Shadow song), since that's the one I'm finding sources on. If it were to stay as both, the slash should be the other way. Worm 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gnews has quite a bit of coverage, when searched properly here or here. In fact, this article by NY Times calls Entropy "the first defining moment in [DJ Shadow's] work." Could probably do with a little more work and possibly a move, but I'd say it's notable. Disclosure: I am adopter of the creator of this article Worm 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet
WP:NSONG. Little evidence of independent notability. No chart positions, appearances in major movies, few (if any) independent reviews)--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep there are sources in major media Thisbites (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys- thanks for the great suggested links, which I will be looking into! I'm going to do some more updates over the weekend, and I think given DJ Shadow's reputation that this aricle might just qualify as notable. If not, I'll add it to the Solesides Greatest Bumps article. Let me know what's would be the RIGHT THING (title has been updated and a redirect added!)Bennydigital (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Only 400 cassettes and 200 12" vinyl singles were originally pressed up and sold on consignment in record stores in the Bay Area" - that's notable? Give it a mention in whoever's article it belongs in. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavour to cover it's subsequent bootleggery and inclusion on several retrospective (and sought after) collections!Bennydigital (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that I have added enough to keep this, and will be including more information as to why it is notable, retrospective critical acclaim etc as and when I have the time and unrestricted internet access! Disclosure- I am the author of this article, but I'm unsure as to whether or not I'm permitted to vote on this... Just wipe the keep if I'm out of line! Bennydigital (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are quite entitled to both !vote (once) and comment as often as you wish. This isn't a
Asia Born on the other side. The problem with suggesting a merge would be what to do with this - you can't redirect to two places. It could be kept as a disam page linking both performers, though. I think it needs more coverage on the record to show it as a notable entity. I'm usually sceptical about with people known as DJ something (I'm waiting for DJ Lil BSE to appear some day...), but this one does seem notable. But this record? Peridon (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

What to do? I think this Entropy\Send Them clearly needs to be deleted now that it's a redirect to a more appropriate title. So is this AfD about the new title? If so, are we debating this title? If not, what to do? — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the rationale is "... this AfD is primarily about the single itself ...", I assume that the AFD is now regarding the updated title. At least that issue is no longer a problem. I'm not sure you can withdraw your nomination as there have been other delete votes so it's probably best to let it run it's course. Worm 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the article in question is still questionable even after recent changes, so I guess that's right. If this remains a keeper, I think I'll do db-r3 on this redirect. Certainly an implausible typo. — Timneu22 · talk 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs demonstrate notability. Needs renaming. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 6 February 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.