Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackberry blossom (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 Procedural close. This is a relist of a 11-year old mal-formed nomination. The title is not an article, but a redirect. AFD is wrong venue and I see no reason to list at RFD. (non-admin closure) MB 15:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Blackberry blossom (song)

 * – (View AfD

Delete without prejudice to future re-creation. If anyone has the time and inclination to create a WP article of this topic it's a go but what this is is a personal essay full or error, irrelevant specious observations and a meaningless string of chord names which serves no purpose. Article must establish notability and use reliable sources not vague personal opinion. BTW the tune is not Old Time is a a contemporary written tune and the article doesn't even credit the author of the tune.
 * Relevant Wikipedia guidelines:


 * Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9.

22:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 10:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.