Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Rosa (ABBA 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   redirect to He Is Your Brother.  MBisanz  talk 10:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Santa Rosa (ABBA song)

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

Fails notability per WP:SONG. B side track only, never released as a single in its own right, no notable covers Paul75 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be merged somewhere? TheWilyFox (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge With He Is Your Brother. There is no need to delete this. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Nothing to merge since there are no sources to verify the claims in the article.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it implausible that someone would use Wikipedia's naming conventions? and I think the claims could easily be verified from the primary sources. TheWilyFox (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what is implausible is for this to work effectively as a redirect, someone would have to type santa rosa, open brackets, capital ABBA, closed brackets. The amount of users that would actually do that is very very small. As for the sources, if you can find anything on the "fact" that this was going to be called "Grandpa's Banjo", or that was intended to be released as a single in Japan, but was instead used as the b-side, sweet. Lets see them. Saying that something exists is one thing, proving it so is something different.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Typing "Santa Rosa (ABBA song)" is precisely what a Wikipedian familiar with WP:DAB would type if looking for this song. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no awards, no charts, no covers, no sources, a non-notable track. JamesBurns (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that JamesBurns is a banned sockpuppeteer. Rlendog (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect (and merge whatever is appropriate) Using disambiguation to meet Wikipedia naming conventions is not implausible especially when more articles with the same name exist. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into He Is Your Brother. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment There is absolutely no information in this article to be merged. Unless anyone can come up with a whole raft of new information, the merge will consist of one line.  Paul75 (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect - I added the one sentence worth of information that would have been merged to the He Is Your Brother article. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On 2nd thought, redirect would be more appropriate than delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Mgm and TheWilyFox, the title is perfectly plausible and is actually proper per WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I nominated this article for deletion not because of the implausibility of the title, but because it fails Wikipedia notability rules!!! It was a B-side to a single, has not been covered by notable artists, has not been released as a single, did not chart anywhere, and did not win any awards.  There is no place on Wikipedia for a seperate article for this song Paul75 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you with respect to notability, and that there shouldn't be a separate article for this song. Hence my !vote to redirect.  Originally that !vote was to delete.  But since there is some limited information on this song that can be incorporated into the He Is Your Brother article, a redirect is more appropriate.  And since someone else (not you) suggested deleting on the basis of a non-plausible title, and the plausibility of the title is relevant to the delete/redirect distinction, it was necessary to address that. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 23 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.