Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runaway (Linkin Park 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 defaulting to keep, disagreement here on whether this merits an article or not but discussion was leaning towards keep after evidence was found of it charting. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Runaway (Linkin Park song)

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

This track is non-notable on its own -- I redirected it to the album title but that was reverted by another editor. Should be deleted or consensus reached as to redirect. ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable non-single. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It definitely does not fail WP:MUSIC, TPH. "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" are indicated as having sufficient notability. S.  D. Jameson 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the major contributor to this stub, I wanted to state here that I have no real problem with a deletion and redirect. I think, though, that this stub, and how quickly it was tagged for speedy deletion (not by the nominator, but by a different user), points to some incredible deficiencies currently present in NPP. It seems like it's a race of sorts to see who can get the new pages tagged for speedy. And it's not just the taggers that have the issues, sometimes it's the deleting administrators as well. I fully grasp that we have a ton of articles on very marginably notable topics on the project. I have tagged my fair share of newpages for deletion. But something must be done when pages that are clearly not "nonsense" are being tagged (and even sometimes deleted, though not in this case) as such. S. Dean Jameson 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldn't agree more with you Dean. But I really don't think much can be done and that's the problem. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a source here that lists Runaway as a charting "single" (hit ctrl + F if you can't find it). I am not sure if that is quite a reason to keep because Linkin Park never actually released the song as a single, but it did chart on Billboard. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, if the song has "charted", according to Tavix's link, then it explicitly doesn't "Fail WP:MUSIC", which says  Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. No reason to delete.  If it can't be expanded a bit more, I see no problem with merging, per the same guideline, although the precedence seems to be towards keeping notable songs as standalone articles.  Keeper    76  19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does not fail WP:MUSIC because it has charted, and it was not released as a single. There are many single articles that only say that the song was released as a single, but the article is kept anyway. See "Piss Up a Rope." Tezkag72 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Keeper and Tez, as well as the fact that it does appear to have achieved some real notability in its own right, apart from the album itself. S. Dean Jameson 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the references in the article speak to the notability of this track as opposed to that of the album or the band. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound glib her, but what song (other than some obvious ones) have notability apart from the "album or band"? If that's the standard, there would be a ton less articles on singles. S. Dean Jameson 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Does anyone own the album Hybrid Theory? I have Meteora and Minutes to Midnight and it has a description of the history of each song listed in the liner notes of both of those albums. If anyone has Hybrid Theory it probably has info in that too. Thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge . Delete (see below). While it may not fail WP:MUSIC there's little to support a full article and what little [sourced] information there is can be merged into the album article. Also, the article was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/With You (Linkin Park song) Rehevkor ✉  23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you mean when you claim it's been deleted before. The link you provided is for a different song. And the reasoning you use in your merge recommendation could be used to merge nearly all of the current song articles. S.  D. Jameson 02:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the link? The deletion was for multiple articles. And so what if it applies to all articles? They're nothing to do with this discussion. Actually, now I make a closer look, there is no reliable sourced information not already in the album article. Changing my "vote". Rehevkor ✉  02:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to get angry. My point was that your link that you claim proves this article has been deleted before proves no such thing. I also was making the point that according to your reasoning, nearly every article on a specific song could be deleted. Nearly any time a song is mentioned in reliable sources, it will be in conjunction with the album from which it comes. Thus your reasoning doesn't hold, especially now that you've strengthened your opposition to the existence of this article to "delete" from "merge." The song is noted in several reliable sources. There's simply no reason to delete this article. S.  D. Jameson 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And for the record, having been deleted before, over a year ago, with very little discussion has no bearing on this discussion. S.  D. Jameson 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Angry? :P I'm curious as to why you think I'm angry. But yeah. It being previously deleted through AfD is relevant here as the previous discussion and reasons to help shed light on any current discussion, if you disagree then disregard it (also WP:CSD could be taken into account, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have a time limit). As for other articles, I stand by my previous opinion that an article on this subject is totally unnecessary. That's all there is to it really. Rehevkor ✉  03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seemed, from the way you structured the note, that you were a bit angry. Sorry for the misapprehension on my part. As for your contention that a previous deletion matters in this discussion, that's simply wrong. The article, as it was structured before, was most likely completely different than this one. It now has five separate, very reliable sources. Deleting this article would not help the project in any way. S.  D. Jameson 03:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Either way, the only reason I mentioned it was that previous deletions are usually mentioned at the start of the nomination, in this case the previous AfD was part of a separate article. Users making their opinion known will take it on its own merits, if any, let them make up their own minds. You're welcome to your opinion on that, but don't expect me to agree with it. Whether or not a deletion "helps" a project should have no bearing this. Rehevkor ✉  03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything we do should "help" the project. This deletion just doesn't do that. The article is written in an encyclopedic manner, well-referenced, and nearly start class already. There's just no reason at all to delete it, and the "reasons" proposed thus far simply don't pass muster. S.  D. Jameson 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree! Funny that, isn't it? Rehevkor ✉  03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * {undent}You're of course free to "disagree." But it doesn't fail WP:MUSIC, it doesn't fail WP:NOTE, it doesn't fail WP:RS, so I'm not certain how to make any sense of your recommendation to delete. And do you "disagree" that everything we do here should help the project in some way? S.  D. Jameson 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it failed any policy, or guide lines. I'm saying the article is unnecessary, it's as simple as that. Care to explain why Wikipedia's AfD should help a project at all? AfD is independent. Rehevkor  ✉  03:58, 10 August 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.