Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixties Man

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 redirect to Waters Edge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixties Man

Sixties Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Despite the article actually saying "it is notable", the article makes no attempt to qualify that statement and, crucially, neither does the web. This is a case in point why CSD A9 should apply to non-notable songs whose performers have articles. Launchballer 01:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the song's parent album,
  WP:NSONG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which also is of questionable notability, albeit not to the same extent as this article.--Launchballer 10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It usually makes more sense to uncontroversially redirect likely non-notable songs to their parent album or artist than to take them to AfD czar ⨹ 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like to give the author a chance to explain itself/double-check I haven't missed anything.--Launchballer 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the album per above. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (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.