Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Have Fun, Go Mad


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Have Fun, Go Mad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prodded, prod removed. There is no supporting article for the band, no references Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 18:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps not an all-time classic song, but it did manage to be a hit single TWICE--for two different artists no less-- hitting the top 40 and then later the top 20. That's a notable song. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: That there is no article for the band is irrelevant to the notability of the song ... although as the performers for two singles which charted on the UK charts, it certainly qualifies for one. That being said, the most cursory attempt at research supports the article's claim that this song is a two-time UK Singles Chart tune, which is all that's needed.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  09:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. A song article without a supporting artist page is grounds for speedy deletion under A9. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Why, look ... here's one right here. And it was even mentioned in the article as the other group that did a cover of the song which made the UK Singles Chart, at the time you filed the AfD. That being said, perhaps you should reread A9, which holds, "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true)." (emphasis in the original)  I rather expect that most editors, myself included, would view a mention that a song had twice over made the top 40 of a national singles' chart as a valid assertion of significance.  Cheers back atcha.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The speedy argument is wrong, since the article asserts notability. But as far as I can tell it doesn't meet either WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Both require significant coverage in reliable sources, and I didn't find any. The closest were three one-line mentions, none of which really count as significant. NSONG does mention that "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", but this would appear to be an exception. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's not an "exception." That's one of NSONG's core tenets.  This song meets it.  Ravenswing  17:18, 11 September 2011 (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.