Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus' Son (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 no consensus. ansh 666 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus' Son (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be INDEPENDENTLY notable enough to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. So why didn't you consider merging it to the album? --Michig (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules.


 * The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.


 * To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:


 * 1) Its subject is notable.
 * 2) It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
 * 3) It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
 * 4) The article has existed on Wikipedia for well over a year by now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
 * 5) Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.


 * In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to A Place for Us to Dream, per WP:NSONG. While some staffers at PopMatters weighed in with their opinions of the song, the vast majority of other sources mention the single as part of the upcoming album, mention that the song was played in a concert, or simply announce that the song has a video. An article built solely on WP:SUBJECTIVE opinions and the fact a promotional video was made is a poor article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is notable or not, but it would seem to me that if it is notable it should be possible to find a source that says the blindingly obvious - that the title is a quotation from The Velvet Underground's "Heroin". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2017 (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.