Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysyphus


 * 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 Ummagumma. w/o prejudice to merging verificable content j⚛e deckertalk 17:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sysyphus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG. Article has references in the lead, but they are passing mentions, the remainder of the article is unsourced. I've reduced the article to a redirect to Ummagumma several times but have been reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – After removing the original research, about all that's left is confirmation that it exists. Will never be more than a WP:PERMASTUB.  —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to Ummagumma. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Why do you want to delete it? And if people go to search for this song on Wikipedia, they find nothing then what do you do? don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.177.131 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep " I've reduced the article to a redirect to Ummagumma several times but have been reverted. "  Maybe that's a hint!  You've heard of consensus, right?  It's just that everyone else keeps giving the wrong answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ummagumma. I'd figured that every Pink Floyd song would have sufficient analysis to pass WP:GNG, even the more obscure ones like this.  However, I've just spent some time looking for sources, and apart from brief mentions that this was Wright's contribution to the album, nobody seems to have paid it much attention as the contributions from Gilmour and Waters.  I don't think I could say in good conscience that this meets the WP:GNG, as much as I'd like it to.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm quite happy with a redirect to Ummagumma, I'm just not sure what the avenue is to decide between keeping or redirecting something. Proposed mergers is more for taking two existing articles and combining them somehow, where as here (per both Lankiveil's research and my own) there would be little to redirect as the song has never been discussed or covered by anyone in any depth and the (now-deceased) composer has never mentioned it other than to disown it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:52, 22 October 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.