Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Intention Craft (single)


 * 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   no consensus. Much of the debate seems, while on topic, to be sidetracked. Wizardman 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Intention Craft (single)

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

WP:MUSIC Spoilydoily (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This song does not meet any of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.154.131 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:MUSIC "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
 * If you feel it's worthy of deletion, fair enough. I thought it'd be interesting, and definetly has "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". A couple of delete votes and i'll csd nom it myself. Ironholds 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point; "enough material........" means material that meets the constraints of the foregoing paragraph i.e notability. I notice you have done the same with other songs so I will be AfD'ing those as well.Spoilydoily (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel a need to, fair enough. As it happens I haven't, but good luck with that one. Iron<b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 07:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although I bow to your infinitely superior judgement, I find AfD an odd place to start off, zooming straight to these articles. Since you didn't reply on your talk page i'll ask again; what got you interested in doing this in particular? <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Articles related to Pure Reason Revolution have been under sustained attack by a vandal using a succession of single purpose accounts for several months, so editors should tread carefully. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

**Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Spoilydoily (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You put up the AfD. It's kind of assumed you want the page deleted. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that you dispute my right to re-assert my opinion given that a third party has elected to relist the AfD? Wouldn't you serve your cause better by arguing a case for retention? Spoilydoily (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. PRR are a notable band. Taking all the material on the article pages for their different singles and putting those in the main article would make it far too long, so retaining separate pages for each single seems appropriate. Alternatively, someone could create a PRR discography article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the merging wouldn't be neccessary; the first two singles fulfill notability requirements easily by having placed on a national chart. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing a particular single here which was NOT placed in a national chart and does not attain the somewhat tenuous notability of the other 2 singles with which you seem to want to cloud the AfD. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to "cloud" the AfD, I was just replying to Bondegezou's idea about merging the pages. Please don't twist my words. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 18:24, 4 August 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.