Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amethyst (Phase 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. Disregarding obvious SPAs, the policy-based votes indicate there is not sufficient coverage in WP:RSes to show that this song passes GNG, so I am closing this as delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Amethyst (Phase song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article doesn't comply to Notability:Music guidance, it contains false statement has gathered rave reviews from press which is blatant advertisement.--SubRE (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 *  Strong Keep hyping on last.fm makes it quite notable if you are asking me, your I start thinking you are the one to know them and have something against them MusicPatrol (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious keep since I started the article of course. I would have to agree we have to do with an internet troll here rather than someone who wants to improve the wikipedia community. No wonder he is sock puppeting as well One Drive proof sock puppet Asouko (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Both users above is authors of article and active promoters of band, possibly members. So I suggest simply to ignore their "votes". The only "argument" they mentioned is "hyping on last.fm", based on link. Hypescore of a song was 276 on last.fm which equals to around 290 listeners a week. That's next to zero and shows how non-notable single is.--SubRE (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of secondary, and tertiary sources talked about it, and it falls within WP:NOTABILITY. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidently if I use Bing News I get these results, plenty to use in the future. ✌🏻😊 --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "plenty" - more like next to none.--SubRE (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * commentexcellent gas-lighting technique there...You'll probably have to google this meaning... this is just outrageous! I am out! please experienced editors, you should look into this! Asouko (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, experienced editors really should look into this - no name pub band's self-promotion on Wikipedia. This single exists only as statistical record. No chart positions, no "rave reviews", no any kind of mentions in reputable sources.--SubRE (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment your argument isn't valid... next to zero.. like Coldplay and Katatonia who I doubt you know... maybe go to their page and start deleting... You don't have the background to even have an opinion on the matter MusicPatrol (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A Screenshot of the actual Narc Magazine Narc's Tom Hollingworth on Amethyst which aparently is big enough to have an extensive presentation of their festival on BBC here, you can listen for your self Narc festival presentation on BBC MusicPatrol (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the blogspot in the first link is not an RS. The NARC radio episode will only be available to listen to until 23 July – the only mention of Phase during the whole programme is their song "Point of View, Too" (not even the song under consideration in this AfD) which is played at 34:31, and at 42:58 the presenter recaps the band's name and song title, and states it's from a forthcoming remix EP. No other information, and the entire mention lasts fewer than 15 seconds. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep and possibly consider redirecting to the album's page where the information should be merged to 86.183.161.31 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Keep it does meet the notability criteria, like it's mentioned above, merging with the album's page isn't a bad idea 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the album itself is also under AfD consideration, so a redirect may not be possible. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Again, the article is a start class one and deletion should be the last resort anyway, it can be fixed, it just needs time. Asouko (talk) 04:25, 20 July 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.