Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/500 Miles High


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Reb1981 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

500 Miles High

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * The article has no references. It does not show any reason for notability. Reb1981 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those is a valid reason for deletion. If there are no references, one should first try to find some. If no reason for notability is shown, it should be sought. See WP:BEFORE. Now if one could say "There are no references, and a reasonable search convinces me that there are no sources." that would be different. DES (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The article is now nearly 500 words long, with 18 cited sources. It shows billboard charting of an album containing it, an award for "Best improvisational solo", and covers by such notable artists as Stan Getz. Significant critical commentary is quoted. The song is a recognized jazz standard. I think it is pretty clearly notable. I also think that a pretty basic WP:BEFORE search should have found at least some of this. The first few references I found were listed in our article about the album, which was the only wiki-link in the version nominated for deletion. Many of the rest appear in a basic google search. DES (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , Do you still think that the article "does not show any reason for notability."? DES (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, DES for adding that info! I wanted to know more about this beautiful song. JECompton (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now has several references and Google book searches turned up several more. The song is notable.  The article has many problems (Return to Forever, not for, etc.), but should saved (I'll take a crack at it). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Dloh cierekim  22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, hell of an improvement on the original stub. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been greatly expanded and referenced, and the song's notability is evidenced by the "Critical reception" section in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * sugestion If nominator could withdraw the nomination, this could be closed sooner. Dloh cierekim  13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep given the improvements and newly added sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2017 (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.