Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The God That Failed (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 keep after improvements made during the course of this afd. L'Aquatique [talk  ]

The God That Failed (song)

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

Rather unfortunate that this needs to take up anybody's time or effort. We have here an album track - admittedly from a very notable album by a very notable band, but still just an album track. This was prodded and deleted (by me) for the same reason last year, but was re-added. I prodded it, and in fact the prod was there for the requisite five days, but nobody zapped the article. I would've done so, but it simply slipped my mind. So here we are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep- The song does have some individual notability for its subject matter, as shown here:, and . Each of those three discusses the song in detail, I think giving it some notability separate from the album. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those three results are hardly convincing. The first one, unless I'm doing it wrongly, is just a record that a book has been written about Metallica, which fact shouldn't surprise anybody. That doesn't confer any notability on the song by itself, although if there's a way of looking inside it, then it might do. Of the two remaining sources, the second one provides some level of background (generally just on why it was written), while the third only mentions the song in passing (even in the section which borrows the title) as indicative of a general trend, along with a number of other songs. Most of the highlighted text is of the word "Hetfield", rather than the song title, even. That doesn't add up to non-trivial coverage in multiple sources as I see it, although as I said earlier, it could do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep As pointed out by Umbralcorax, there are several books that offer commentary on the songs meaning etc. provided enough facts to write the article on. Because of these sources alone (and the probability of many more like it) I think the song meets music notability guidelines. — ^.^ &#91;citation needed&#93; 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above on the sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm seeing nothing that establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. No awards, no chart success, no notable covers.  Esradekan Gibb   "Talk" 12:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Metallica (album). The stubbish amount of information I think is best suitable there. ArdClose (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

&#x260E; 10:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a stub, but considerable information exists in reliable sources, and can become more than simply one. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does the information exist? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask a question? Did you search; Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar?. As you would expect, not all of these sources deal with the song in depth, but there are plenty that do. As you would expect for a major song by one of the world's largest bands (at the time), on one of their largest records. The Notability standard is substantial coverage in reliable sources. This subject very clearly meets that (although the article does not yet - but this is not a valid deletion reason). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of not doing research that should've been done by either of the creators of the article is hardly a productive course of action. When there's actual evidence of this coverage presented, rather than vague pointing that "it's over there somewhere" (or, as in an above discussion, the presentation of trivial coverage), then I'll agree with that point. Calling something a "major song" without any evidence that it is indeed such a thing is simply fudging the issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless claims of notability are substantiated in the article. As it stands, it fails WP:MUSIC. Those claiming notability have to provide some details, not just vague claims that it's mentioned in some books, per WP:BURDEN. VG
 * Merge to Metallica (album). Doesn't seem notable as a separate song. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP this article needs to stay. I found it in a google search for "the god who failed" and though it is a short article or stub it is the best one and the number 1 hit for that query. so leave it. Jesse James Shoot 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Jaimes (talk • contribs)
 * The fact that it's the first result of a Google search (well, actually the second, the first is a disambiguation page) doesn't confer notability on anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the above, I have added references from three books, including a 20-page essay by a professor of religion at Baylor using the song as a subject/title. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Dekkappai. --  Banje boi   02:02, 24 September 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.