Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All You Need is Now (song)


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 07:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All You Need is Now (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable song, did not chart. doom gaze  (talk)  16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NSONGS. Doesn't seem to be anything to say about this song that isn't covered in the brief bulletpoint in All You Need is Now and the song seems to lack any significant coverage. (If it does it's buried in the masses of album reviews, so I'd definately reconsider if someone can find some sources which have encyclopaedic stuff to say about this song). Bob House 884 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, (song) part of title makes it an unlikely redirect candidate. And IS IS CAPITALIZED IN TITLES, DAMN IT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Obviously notable band. I looked at 2 album reviews both gave space to the unusual single release.  The article is a stub and should be tagged for lack of sources, but the topic easily meets WP:NSONGS. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me how it "easily meets WP:NSONGS" if there are no sources and you openly admit it will never be more than a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I said that it is a stub, not that it would never be more. I feel it has/will have sufficient coverage in reliable, published sources for the subject to pass the general criteria in WP:N (which is the basis of WP:NSONGS).  This is based on having a paragraph in 2 out of 2 sources that I looked at.  It is true that I'm assuming more coverage is out there based on a very limited sample.  (Incidentally, the commentary seems negative ) One can always try a merge and redirect without an AfD, I've no objection to that. -MrFizyx (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said though, I don't think a redirect would work, since 1.) "is" is supposed to be capitalized, and 2.) I don't think too many people would type in "(song)" at the end. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)Obviously, move first, then merge and redirect. (2)Not really an issue. When placed under the proper title, merge and redirect preserves the history and content right where someone would look for it later if they later wanted to create the article.  It just saves someone the effort setting up an infobox, whatever. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)`


 * Delete: Non-notable song. No significant coverage. MoondogCoronation (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: if it is deleted, merge content into album article, it seems to be information worth keeping.--Milowent • talkblp-r 10:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, is AfD broke or what? All these old AfDs hanging around in the AfD list without being closed?--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:59, 20 April 2011 (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.