Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Fashion Show


 * 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   delete all. As this AfD received minimal participation, anyone may request restoration at WP:REFUND. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Military Fashion Show

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of meeting WP:NSONG. Lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. There is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. (Album article is at afd (Articles for deletion/Bodypop)) duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following pages on two other similar singles from the same album:
 * duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. NSONGS is crystal clear that individual songs don't get a separate article unless there is something that makes them stand head-and-shoulders above the massed ranks of individual songs: While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." Without something special to carry this burden, songs are to be treated in the article about their parent album or artist, as the nom'd articles can and ought to be. The proliferation of needless articles on individual songs is nothing but wikicruft, and it's about time we cracked down on it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.