Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscured by Clouds (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   keep. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Obscured by Clouds (song)

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

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some important information about differences between live versions and the original studio version, which may not be common knowledge due to there being no official release of a live version.   At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence.  The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted.  Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Obscured by Clouds. I don't think it is ever likely to grow beyond a stub. But the useful information should definitely be merged. --JD554 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Having articles for every song by an artist except one is really strange. There seems to be enough content. Zazaban (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- No content? Plenty there! No sources? One can add quotes from Schaffner's and Mabbett's books, maybe Mason's as well. No notability? I'd say Floyd's first song with a synthesizer IS notable only because of this fact. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per HexaChord and the fact that the album  was number 6 in the U.K charts in  1972, . -- J mundo 04:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Does not warrant its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - why this song and not other, less notable ones by the same artist? This song was played live a fair bit and marked at least some firsts for the band (I don't know if it was their first use of synthesizers but it was certainly their first use of drum machines, which I wouldn't have known existed that long ago if not for this song). That's more than can be said for, say, "Stay" or "Burning Bridges" from the same album, yet those articles are not up for deletion. AFDing this one in particular seems arbitrary and capricious. 70.243.45.104 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agreed.  The first PF song to include a synthesizer and the title track for a very notable album is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The keep arguments seem to boil down to 1) it is the first Pink Floyd song to use a synthesizer (or maybe a drum machine), 2) it is from an album which reached number 6 in the charts, and 3) it would be odd for there to be articles for all other Pink Floyd songs but not this one. Point 3 is easily countered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, point 2 clearly doesn't make the song notable and point 1 will only make the song notable if multiple reliable sources discuss this point and the song in detail, this is clearly mentioned in WP:NSONGS. Do these sources exist? --JD554 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The books by Schaffner and Mabbett clearly have sections about the song, I didn't check Mason's book or others. Also I don't have access to contemporary magazines and newspapers. Given the fact that's it's also the soundtrack of a movie by a notable director, there certainly should be sources - but how to find snippets from 1972? -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources from 1972? A subscription to Rock's Backpages helps ;-) But I couldn't find anything useful there :-( That said, I'll assume good faith that the books you mention have enough noteworthy material that could be added to the article to expand it beyond a stub and change my !vote to keep. --JD554 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I will think about a subscription. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  12:10, 29 April 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.