Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluster One


 * 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 keep because sources exist even if they are not yet added to the articles. RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Cluster One

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

We currently have Wikipedia pages for every one of the tracks on The Division Bell by Pink Floyd. Few of them appear to pass WP:NSONG, on a few counts:


 * They don't seem to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, per WP:NSONG.
 * I see nothing that couldn't be covered in sufficient detail in the main article about the album The Division Bell; per NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
 * They have poor sourcing (eg some fansites, YouTube videos).

So I'm nominating the following pages for deletion:


 * Cluster One

Frankly, the other pages aren't in great shape either, and may not pass WP:NSONGS any better, with one or two exceptions. Further opinions there are welcome. Popcornfud (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I am not a particular Pink Floyd fan but I own 2 books that have entries on each of these songs (The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd, Pink Floyd: All the Songs). Given how many books there are on Pink Floyd music it would be surprising if there wasn't more, but what I own at least meets the minimal GNG bar of multiple sources outside of album reviews.  While the articles in their existing state may not be extensive, that is not a AfD concern. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking Google Books, Pink Floyd: Song by Song also seems to have an entry for each of these songs, although given the limitations on the content I can't be certain about "Coming Back to Life." Rlendog (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep all. They meet WP:NSONG per Rlendog's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge all into their parent album's article. The content in each of those articles are barebones and do not show standalone notability. Neo-corelight (Talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on available sources, not the current state of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep all - please keep all.  When looked at as a whole they are supplying a quality source of information.  It can't be mashed into the album page as these details track by track differences in personal and backgrounds to the songs.  Wikipedia has a superb coverage for Pink Floyd data and it is clear people have gone to a lot of work to create this.  There are sources and they do show as correct data.  It would be a pity to delete these tracks beacuse a bot did not like them.  Data like this adds to the quality that is Wikipedia data. A Wikipedia user/fan/minor contributor/donater 14:07 13 January 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.178.206 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, as they are clearly notable individual songs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2022 (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.