Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit


 * 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @034  · 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit

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

contested redirect (to album article). Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no indication of charting or awards. RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with A White Sport Coat and a Pink Crustacean, the album that contains the song.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Nothing to merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources.   Esradekan Gibb    "Klat" 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it does have notability per it's a single, it has charted, it appears on numerous compilation and live albums by the artist, and it has been covered by Carnival Steel Drum Band, Hanna's Reef, Rob Ickes and Chuck St. Troy. Geeky Randy (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment I'm not finding chart history for this song on Billboard's website and the reference given in the article is to a blog, not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The covers you mention dont do much to establish notability here either, WP:NSONGS asks for covers from multiple notable artists.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with everything Geeky Randy said.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Argh. I keep finding sites stating it charted at #23 on Billboard's Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks (Or Easy Listening, as it was called at the time) chart, but I cannot find anything I would consider reliable sourcing for it and Billboard wants several hundred dollars to access chart listings from that long ago.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you search Billboard's site with a song title, you can access summary chart info for specific songs for a specific week without a membership (you are correct that an expensive membership is required to see the entire chart for a particular week). That archive goes back to at least 1950.  The fact that no chart information is coming up for any search combination I've tried on this title leads me to believe that it didnt chart as is claimed by the fans sites in question and that incorrect info has spread as new fans sites copy this information from others.  Fan sites are not known for their fact checking.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd go for a redirect or merge (sans chart statement) into the album article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the information sought for wasn't found at one particular source doesn't mean the other source is unreliable. It's common knowledge you need a membership to access.  Obviously not all records are shown on the free trial.  What's the point of that?  Furthermore, did anybody think to contact the cited sources which supposedly "aren't reliable"?  Perhaps they could steer you in the direction to convince you of reliability?  Probably wouldn't be good enough anyway.  Well in that case, you got a long list of Beatles songs to delete since they didn't chart and have articles out in wikipedia.  I mean, that's what you're here to do, right?  You're not here to help expand, you're here to throw away.  RadioFan claimed earlier that s/he couldn't find any charting information.  I show charting information, and it's not good enough.  What a joke.  Did you ever consider maybe putting in a little more effort than to delete stuff?  Obviously you're not researching hard enough to find notability when it's pretty easy to find.  When the work is done for you, it's not good enough.  These standards are laughable.  I can't believe this is like a city counsel meeting.  You guys must feel really important.  Geeky Randy (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa there - One, sources don't get to "convince" us that they're reliable -- they either pass WP:RS or they don't. Two, the onus isn't on AFD discussion participants to run down reliable sources that support your claims -- everything in the article needs to be verifiable.  Three, the smartassery and outright accusations that we're here to "throw away" things is an absolutely unacceptable violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to album, not independently notable, chart position seems bogus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Lacks reliable sources to verify notability, article is completely original research. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (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.