Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jane (Megadeth song) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Most of the delete votes relied upon the first AfD. The article isn't recreation of deleted material if it has substantially changed since its first deletion. Passes WP:MUSIC as a notable album (top 75 in the UK) of a notable band. PeterSymonds (talk)  14:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Jane (Megadeth song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was previously deleted at AfD, but has been recreated. I still can't see any notability for the song, and despite contacting the author, they just keep reverting it back rather than providing any evidence. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. Maybe we should protect the page from create-protection. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is a little more substantial than the last, and so G4 doesn't apply, otherwise I would have deleted it myself. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alexius08, this article is a recreation of previously deleted material. This present discussion is undermining the entire AfD process and the legitimacy of an AfD ruling. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CSD G4 applies only when "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". That is not the case with this article (not anymore, at least). –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but does need decent third pary sources added about the legend (and being based on it) to properly assert notability in my eyes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. UK Top 75 single - a point not brought up in original nomination - and a notable band. Yes it just missed the Top 40, but the Top 75 should logically count as the chart or there's countless songs that shouldn't have articles, and plenty have all their singles with articles. Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP. It wasn't just a song, buat a single and it should show all that information, rather than just info about the meaning of the song as it had it before (when redirecting to Killing is my bussines). --  Rockk3r       Spit it Out!  17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think top 75 is enough to warrant an article, and I am still not seeing any reliable sources. Simply being a single does not mean that it is notable. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So Far, So Good… So What!, the album in which this song is included, has long been a top selling album. Perhaps sources containing that information would help in making this specific song notable. I'm sure the song itself is mentioned in more than a few interviews with the frontman. Find those sources. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Merge to So Far, So Good… So What!. Song does not seem to be notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP you all talk about it gotta be notable. Well it is notable, very well known song from one of the best Megadeth's albums. Also you talk about notability, Check this out I just went through some articles and found out this: almost 70% of Dream Theater, Rammstein, and so on, have articles for their songs, and they're not THAT notable, just look at this one Images and Words --  Rockk3r       Spit it Out!  03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One, don't !vote twice, two, simply being by Megadeth or being from their 'best' album does not make it notable, three, if other crap exists, nominate it for deletion, we are talking about this article here, and four, I still can't see any reliable sources, meaning this also fails our verifiability policy. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea but as I can see you didn't even take the time to nominate those for deletion, so what's your eagerness on deleting this article. First, it was a single, second, appeared as # 46 on UK singles chart, third is a well-known song that should have that article. What do you want everyone to show?? That it's the best song ever, well too bad, because it's not, but it's not the worst either. I still DON'T understand why to delete it? Leave that article.--  Rockk3r       Spit it Out!  23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was eager to delete it, I would just do it, and cite G4. Instead, I gave the article a chance, and I have just had the same "It's notable, I don't care what the policy says" arguments thrown at me. Please don't accuse me of having an agenda. I have nominated song articles from several heavy metal bands en masse in the past, and this just happened to be one of articles that went in my trawl of Megadeth, and that's why it was on my watchlist. This nomination was a reactive one- I saw the article on my watchlist, and dealt with the issue. This was not a proactive 'hmm, I'll go and nominate some heavy metal songs.' In answer to your other query, I am struggling to see how my explanation could be any simpler- I believe that the article should be deleted because there are no reliable sources showing that the song is notable. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I think it would be easy to show that the song is notable if there is enough supporting sources to back it. Here is an idea, do a search and find out everything the song has been included on. Look for dvd collections as well. I think they just put out a collection of tracks recently and my bet is that Mary Jane is included in that set. If you dig a bit you might find links to different music magazine websites that have reviewed it or even a direct mention of that specific song. It should not be that hard to find and that would give more sources to show that it is notable. I'm certain that lyrics and tab has been published as well. Also find out if the song has been in any movies. Is it in any video games? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep, Useful and notable information --Kyknos (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Notability", as used in the context of deletion discussions, refers to the topics of articles rather than the information they contain (i.e. their content). –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is in complete violation of an AfD ruling, if this AfD process is not respected and fails to establish precedent we are wasting our time evaluating this. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The previous AfD included relatively few participants and the article, in its present form, is substantially different from the version that was deleted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD ruling is AfD ruling, the AfD ruling was delete but this article was recreated so this article is in violation of an AfD ruling which must set precedent. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While this article definitely should have gone through a deletion review (the improvement from the old version is not so substantial to unquestionably justify recreation), prior AfD rulings are not automatically binding when the content of the deleted and recreated articles is not the same, otherwise this article would have been speedily deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per reaching #46 on the UK Singles Chart (I added a third source to the article). While I think that a strong argument could be made for merging to the article about the album, which is notable, I think that such a decision would best be done with the participation of editors at Talk:So Far, So Good… So What!. It's much easier to recommend merging than to actually merge content without hurting the quality of the target article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (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.