Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No way does this deserve a standalone article. Biggest-selling instrumental single in the history of recorded music or not, this is an unnecessary fork as far as I'm concerned. Laun chba  ller  10:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The song was a number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It therefore meets the first factor in WP:NSONG.--Bensin (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I don't fully understand the nominators argument ... it's common practice on wikipedia to have forks for specific singles if that is what they are referring to? Anyway, this qualifies, being No 1 on Billboard Hot 100 and it also charted at No 7 in the United Kingdom. JTdale   Talk 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument is that we don't need a standalone article when there's almost as much information on Star Wars Theme then there is here. Per WP:NSONG, "notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".-- Laun  chba  ller  20:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point and I agree with the general principle that articles should be about songs, not singles, but this song is a medley of songs from Star Wars so it does not easily merge into any single one of the songs it is made up from. (Even so, a proposal for merger would perhaps have been more suitable than a delete.) --Bensin (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete--Halo 2 player (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete--Halo 3 gamer (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete--Halo reach player (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I've blocked the above three as obvious sockpuppets. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Delete a #1 Billboard single?  Don't be silly.  That's as notable as a pop song can possibly get aside from arguably winning a Grammy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are many references that prove it is notable.Frmorrison (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. A chart is just a list/a ranking and charting in and of itself is not a notable feat; it is the coverage of that feat that makes it notable (which is why most #1 songs are going to have much more coverage than a song peaking at #75 and why there's an article on this medley and not Mecos's "Pop Goes the Movies", a top 40 hit from 1982). -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The preceding argument overreaches; it denies the the NSONG provisions. Now, while the provisions say specifically they "may" indicate that notability can be found, WP:DEL also keeps articles for which sources can be found. Not necessarily exist in the article. So this fits neatly in with NSONG assuring that top ranking songs may be expected to get that coverage. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question if this was a Billboard #1 song, where is the coverage? I should add that charts/single releases alone do NOT make songs notable. If this can't be expanded beyond a stub, it doesn't warrant its own article. Same for if there is no significant coverage from reliable third-party references independent of its album. Unless this can be expanded with coverage outside of album reviews, I say redirect to Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk. It's definitely a plausible search term, but I so far don't see how it warrants a separate article at the moment. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Link rot? Chart position does indeed confer a special status on songs, as shown in my argument above. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's an entry on the song in this book (p. 474), it's discussed (among other songs) in the Billboard article "Film Themes Spur Rash of Singles Hits", and there's further info on it here and here, for starters. These, along with going platinum and going to number one, shows that enough material exists to meet WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow   talk  21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With Gongshow's evidence of notability, I now vote keep. Article still needs expansion, though. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 July 2014 (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.