Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stay (Pink Floyd song) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Obscured by Clouds. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Stay (Pink Floyd song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for songs, specifically "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Although a nice song, and there are good sources, it wasn't a single and there are no notable covers by other artists. There's nothing here that isn't already said in Obscured by Clouds already, aside from the third paragraph in "Analysis" which looks like something Louis Balfour would say on The Fast Show's "Jazz Club" (except adding "mmm, nice" after each sentence). The "(Pink Floyd song)" disambiguator means a redirect to the album is not suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't see why "redirect to the album is not suitable"? Somebody looks for this or links to this, should go to the album. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we generally don't expect readers to type disambiguator terms in brackets. We could expect them to go to Stay, a disambiguation page, which would then take them to Obscured by Clouds. (I can't find policy at the moment but I have seen this happen on a number of occasions). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We may not "expect" readers to type the disambibuator, but some do (I certainly do when I suspect there may be a disambiguator like this). So I don't see why it is better to send those readers who do type the disambiguator to a dab page rather than redirecting them directly to the album. Rlendog (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the disambiguation page for Stay already links to the album. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the album. People could realistically put the current title into the search box, and redirects are cheap.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete let it be covered in the article about the album the song is on. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that redirecting would contradict this rationale. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, This song appears to pass GNG have been documented in reliable sources,
 * Strong, Martin C. (2004). The Great Rock Discography (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Canongate Books. p. 1177. ISBN 1-84195-551-5.
 * Mabbett, Andy (1995). The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-4301-X.
 * Manning, Toby (2006). "The Albums". The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.). London: Rough Guides. p. 164. ISBN 1-84353-575-0. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read and cited from all three of those book sources, and they are trivial passing mentions in the context of Obscured By Clouds. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Lugnuts. If, as the nominator stated "there are good sources" I could be open to changing to "keep," but someone would have to do the research.  Right now there are 2 sources used for this song in the Obscured by Clouds article, neither of which is within an album review, but neither of which seems to be particularly substantive - Povey does have a short paragraph on the song, for which I can give a little credit towards notability but not much, and I don't know what is in the Mabbett source but unless there is more than what is referenced in the Obscured by Clouds article that moves the needle even less.  As to the sources listed by Valoem, I unfortunately misplaced my copy of this Mabbett book but if I recall correctly it had a short paragraph on most songs, for which I can provide some credit towards GNG (regardless of the form, it is certainly not an album review) but again not much.  Strong rarely has more than a sentence on album tracks so unless someone has evidence to the contrary it does not help towards meeting GNG.  And I doubt the Rough Guide has much more - Mannings "Rough Guide to Pink Floyd" has a sentence that refers to the song.  Given how much has been written on Pink Floyd's music I can't deny the possibility that this songs meets GNG, but there needs to be more evidence.Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - in regards to the three above sources, Stay is mentioned more than once in the rough guide. I've currently requested this book to check if anymore information can be extracted. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have this book, and I'll check it later tonight when I get home. I see we've gone past the token relist day/time for another 7-day sweep, but I'd be grateful if this can stay open until the end of the day (UK time). Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nearly forgot - there's nearly 3/4 of a page on this song (page 197) in the Rough Guide. It's part of the section called "Floyd's Finest 50" and is ranked at #25, which is in chronological order of release.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That certainly strengthens the notability argument, although I think it still could use another substantial source to get over the bar. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per Lugnuts. It's a valid redirect, even if consensus is that it doesn't meet our notability criteria. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J <i style="color:#137412;">947</i>(c) (m) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary. This article has been considered notable enough for an article for 11 years, notability which has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article). Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There wasn't a consensus 11 years ago that the song was notable. The previous Afd was closed as unnecessary because a merge to the album was proposed and could be done without an Afd discussion.  Meanwhile notability guidance for songs has been revised and separated from singles and albums. Nothing wrong with taking another look today. Gab4gab (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment is the weakest possible response to my argument because it attacks a single phrase and ignores the substance. Read it this way:"Notability is not temporary. Notability has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article)."
 * It also misses the point because I didn't mention the previous AfD, which was only 8 years ago. I was referring to the history of the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, you were just saying it was considered notable because it hadn't been deleted for 11 years. I thought you were referring to a previous consensus discussion where it's notability was considered. My mistake. Gab4gab (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually a victim of two things 1) not saying anything another article already does and 2) not being an appropriate search term for a redirect. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist - let's try to reach a consensus with this discussion
 * Redirect to the album. It's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the album, not independently notable. I agree that it is not an especially likely search term, and would normally allow the disambiguation page to take the traffic, but the above convinced me at least some people (the commenters above) might type the whole thing. --Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Refs #7 and #8 in the "Analysis" section provide information that is not in the album article and would be WP:UNDUE if it were merged there. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This song was released in the USA as a single ("B" side of Free Four). It was already mentioned in the lead, I have added as a section in the article. This adds to notability, and was denied in the original post. I'm not sure of the consensus on "B" sides, but to me there is little difference between "A" and "B" on vinyl. However, I acknowledge that it was not available on a single in other markets. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (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.