Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless, Nameless (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Endless, Nameless (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First things first this song was only ever a bonus track or "hidden" track on some copes of the album it was from. That for a start means it is not that notable. The information provided by the sources seem to repeatedly describe how the band leader "was pissed off" and so trashed their instruments and the studio while still being recorded. apart from the other releases where it appears as a b-side and on a rarities box set, I really don't see how this conforms to Notability (music) QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect - The song doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. I agree. This should go to the parent album. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Is every song on an extremely iconic album notable, even a hidden one? I think so.  Few albums deserve an article for every song, but this is probably one of them.  It is also informative and reliably sourced. Caro7200 (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * no, the song doesn't have WP:INHERITED notability from its parent album... it has to pass WP:NSONG on its own merits. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a case of strictly--or only--inherited notability . . . iconic albums are by definition made up of notable songs in a way that merely classic or excellent ones are not. The text of the article, and its sources, demonstrate notability, in my opinion.  My "vote" is still keep. Caro7200 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean that every song on a "classic" album will necessarily merit its own article, or indeed that it will be possible to find enough material to create an article for each individual song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even in the context of the broader album, this is a mere bonus track that's not known for having any particular aspects that really stand out. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a bonus track . . . it's a "hidden" one. Or better phrased, an unlisted one.  The listener doesn't have to expend any additional energy to hear it--she or he just needs to wait out the silence. This is a mostly well-written, informative, referenced, well-viewed article that has been around since 2005 . . . not sure why it's become such a deletion "priority." And as the Rolling Stone article states, "Thanks to Nevermind, these sort of hidden tracks would remain popular until WinAmp and its descendents revealed track lengths before the listener pressed play." Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references supplied would normally meet GNG by themselves, and they're just of the tip of the iceberg. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. GNG trumps notions about what characteristics of a song may make them seem non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Caro7200. Sources in the article are good enough for the song to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:45, 22 April 2020 (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.