Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues


 * 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   rediect to Icky Thump. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

not a single, not notable enough for seperate article, should be merged into album article LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable and contains enough information to warrant its own article. Wikipedia isn't limited in size. Monobi (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PAPER refers to topics not articles. --Lemmey talk 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good God. It's not even law. It just states that, previously, articles have been kept because Wikipedia isn't limited in size to the number of articles it can have. Second, have you ever considered that articles make up topics? Finally, give me a rational reason saying why this article is worthless and should be deleted. Monobi (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP don't get your panties in a wad. How is the song notable enough to have its own article? What about this article could not be incorporated into the Album? As its not a single, the song and the album are the same topic and should be the same article. --Lemmey talk 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability; no indication of WHY this is notable in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 08:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Icky Thump, as a plausible search term. Compare with this recent AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Is it necessary to have an AFD every time I come across an obviously non-notable album track? Can't I just redirect it to the album myself? indopug (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I would be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, i have done plenty of times. It's feasable that the term might be searched for so a redirect is more useful than a delete. -- neon white user page talk 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect this non-notable song to the album, if there is proof the album is notable. Edison (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the writer of this article. It's a fairly new article and I can't devote 100% of my wikitime to it so I ask that it be given a chance to be written further. There is no deadline to completing this article. Based to the number of hits in google about this song there are 31,600 hits. Of course you might cite something like WP:GOOGLEHITS as a rebuttle, however, whilst the number of hits might not be an adequate measure of the notability of other subject I believe it is a good measure of the notability of a song. Remember that in this day and age people have easy access to songs over the web and the best selling (and hence most covered by the mainstream press) song/single is not necessarily the most notable. Also, the fact there is such a large number of hits on the web has also made it difficult to find mainstream press articles about this song. There is a cite about the Washington Posts description of the song cited in this article and this shows some degree of notability enough to keep this article. A redirect wouldn't be as good as this song is both on "Icky Thump" as well as being on the B-Side of "You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told)" furthermore, a redirect would lose the information in this article. Comparisons to Grease Paint and Monkey Brains are not valid as Grease Paint had no cites at all before deletion. Note also that user:LukeTheSpook, user:Lemmey, user:Titanium Dragon, user:Lugnuts seem to have made more or less the same comments in this AFD as well as Articles_for_deletion/I%27m_Slowly_Turning_into_You without giving consideration to each individually. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to meet the criteria which it currently doesnt. I can't see any reason to assume this article will ever be detailed enough to the point of needing it's own article. -- neon white user page talk 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which criteria are you referring to? WP:MUSIC doesn't actually describe criteria but just rough guidelines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan on working on Icky Thump soon, so I will incorporate any useful info into that article. indopug (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But in this case it works much better as a separate article. If every track had a large description about it then it would make the Icky Thump article too big. So it makes more sense to have it wikilinked inside the article. A separate article lets you wikilink it on other articles like it currently is with a wikilink at You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told) as well as a wikilink at The White Stripes. Furthermore, there is a nice infobox that let's you navigate through the tracks. This is what wiki was made for. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most tracks on an album aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, however if there is suffient non-trivial information that is making the album article too long then a split would be necessary but that is not the case here. It's mostly trivial information from a review that could probably be linked to in the review links. -- neon white user page talk 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion. As I mentioned before, I think that 31600 hits are a good measure a songs notability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect If you're "having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion", um, doesn't that imply that the song isn't notable (note that a big portion of those will be lyrics sites)? Anyway, the two useful sentences of information in the "300 MPH" article right now would be fine for Icky Thump. indopug (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm having trouble is that there is alot of hits and it's difficult to find the stuff that can be added to the article from such a large number of hits. I submit that for songs, the number of hits can be a judge of notability as I've mentioned above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.