Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABBA unreleased songs


 * 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, defaulting to keep. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ABBA unreleased songs

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

Non-notable. No inline cites or references means no reliability. How can anything be notable if it has not been released to the public? This means there is limited media coverage providing notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If there is anything of use, it should be merged into relevant album articles, which would be better than a speculation and trivia filled page. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable breakout article for highly notable band. I'm sure most of this can be sourced. Hobit (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is notability inherited? This is just a collection of very non-notable songs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a breakout article of a notable topic, per WP:SIZE. Yes, sometimes there is so much to write about a topic that you need multiple pages to best present the material.  Hobit (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs referencing, yes. But the information offers an interesting aspect into the ABBA experience. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "interesting aspect into the ABBA experience" is not a valid reason. This doesn't account for notability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/Reply I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but to address your concern I will clarify my reasoning. The notability of ABBA and their music is not in question. The article details a little-known aspect of the group's music that was not previously covered on Wikipedia. The article meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: Why not add this material to the ABBA page as a section there? Surely it does not need its own page. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Size would seem to be a constraint. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Size would seem to be a constraint. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wow you really don't have anything better to do. You've attacked pages written about Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Bjork, Kylie Minogue, Spice Girls, and now ABBA. Which artist's page are you going o hit up next? Ofelixdacat (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think the nom is a jerk" is not a valid Keep rationale. JuJube (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge Abba are one of the biggest selling bands in the history of music. However, unreleased songs could only be notable, IMHO, if they were performed live, for a long period of time, or recorded by others.  Thus, this topic may make a good section, on the existing article on the band, but fails notability on it's own.  I do agree with Hobit that size could be a constraint. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment there must be a number of books about ABBA, and I strongly suspect at least some of these songs are discussed. Anyone have the books? Hobit (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Every artist and group has recorded songs that weren't released. Do they warrant a separate article? I don't think they do. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the general rule for notability is not whether it's been released or not, but whether there is sufficient reliable sources. In this case, whilst the article needs to be better referenced, I would strongly suspect there are enough reliable fan-sites and books which list these. Having said that, I do have to declare a slight conflict of interest here, as it was an unreleased song that inspired my username - see 1981! —   Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not really debating reliability. I am debating notability. Fan sites are a poor indicator of a wider notability of a subject. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Most fan sites, of any genre, cannot be considered suitable sources for any article. My point is that there are so many dedicated sites, not to mention books which are generally more reliable, that some suitable sources should be readily available. From WP:MUSIC: A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. This is a reasonably detailed article, lacking only the sources which, as I said, should be available. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Potential sources. I picked out 2 songs somewhat randomly (names that would be easy to search for and weren't later released under the same name).
 * "Get On The Carousel" ,
 * "Free as a Bumble Bee" ,
 * While the first is much better than the second, I think it's pretty plain that this page can be sourced quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 23 July 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.