Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ba-Ba-Bankrobbery


 * 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 merge with Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. Dreadstar †  01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ba-Ba-Bankrobbery

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

Non-notable single - only reached 68 in UK charts. ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The single is non-notable, even if the band is. SWik78 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The single may be non-notable however it is important information and gives a very good explanation as to why a band that has been going over 30 years has not made a very big impact on the music industry and are not internationally well known.  The single may have got to just number 68 in the UK charts, but that doesn't mean it was an international flop does it?  This also adds to the explanation of why the band is not well known.  This article also provides the general information to anyone who wants to read it.  --Cexycy (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - we are not talking about the band, the Afd nomination relates to the single, which, as admitted in the article itself, is non-notable. One possibility would be to include some information on the single in the article on the band, then redirect the single article to the band article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you deem neccessary an explanation as to why a band that has been going over 30 years has not made a very big impact on the music industry and are not internationally well known, that should be done on the article page for the band (Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung). A separate article is not needed, especially one that does not provide a good explanation of the issue you brought up. SWik78 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. Single doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Merging to the band article still allows this as a search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. archanamiya  ·  talk  20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. The German version is, what, 20 years old, and I still know the refrain. It's one of those embarrassing New Year's classics in Germany, and once made #7 in Germany and #4 in Austria. The original song is obviously notable, but since this article is "only" about the poor-ranking English version, it should IMO rather be merged than kept. – sgeureka t•c 10:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to the band article -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of meeting WP:NMG. Merging is OK too. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To be honest, this information was already in the article about the band anyway, which I added myself. I thought as it went on about one song in particular, it would be better off as an article in itself (with a link between the two articles).  Anyone who wishes to read more about the song can do and those who do not don't need to as they are seperate articles.  I don't wish to sound rude, but to say this song is non-notable is utter nonsense as Sgeureka pointed out that people do know the song.  Just because it did poorly in the charts does not mean people do not know it.  It just means many people chose not to buy it, there is a huge difference.  I was only about 4 years old when the song came out and I'm British.  I personally didn't hear the song until a few years back myself, but I still know it.  People who wish to read about the song, have the opportunity to here and people who are only interested in the band can also just read about the band, a whole lot easier, the way things are at the moment.  Can't anyone else see what I'm getting at?  If anyone else knows anything else about the song which is not in the song article, they can add to it, just like they can with other articles.  Other songs have articles, so why can't this one?  --Cexycy (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because WP:WAX is not a reason to keep an article. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 19:05, 10 April 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.