Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Intro and the Outro


 * 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. Actually leaning towards a weak keep - but it would be nice over time hopefully to see some more additional source coverage in the article from other secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Intro and the Outro

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:NSONG; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who 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. Notability aside, a separate article on a song 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."

I have to question whether this article is anything more than a mass of WP:OR. Things like "Dan Druff (perhaps a pun on “dandruff”)" and "The recording, which leads off the second side of the original vinyl release, begins with the greeting "Hi there, nice to be with you, happy you could stick around," as if welcoming listeners from the first side of the album to the second. Stanshall first introduces the members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, who are credited with their actual instruments, over a vamp that resembles Duke Ellington’s "C-Jam Blues":" are original research. Unless references can be provided, the "verifiable" element of WP:NSONGS is not fulfilled. Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've cleaned up the OR and added sources. The song meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't meet the traditional criteria for WP:SONG. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GNG requires multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail. The three sources (in order) 1) not significant detail, it's a passing reference 2) not significant detail, a passing reference and 3) not reliable. It is not a "BBC article": it is the BBC equivalent to Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Aritcle's sources may meet WP:GNG, per User: Panyd. At the very least, merge into Gorilla (Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band album).-- Pink Bull  16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PinkBull: have you looked at the sources in question? The only one which discusses the song in detail is the BBC wikipedia equivalent. Ironholds (talk) 19:3*::7, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Keep was "Weak." :) Besides, I'm seeing numerous sites behind legal search engine paywalls. The references are also contemporary, which gives credence to the notability of a 43-year old song.-- Pink Bull  22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the (now 4) references, 3 don't discuss the song in anything more than a passing way, and the 4th is unreliable, however. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, delete. One of those songs that runs through my head periodically and that I listen to when feeling nostalgic, but none of that makes a song pass WP:NSONG. The BBC source does appear to be a Wiki-equivalent, so it doesn't pass WP:RS.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The article passes WP:NSONG because there is "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song is especially suitable for coverage in detail because it lists numerous contemporary personalities such as Horace Batchelor for whom we have articles.  See Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire for another similar song for which we have a fine article.  It only took a minute to find and cite a source which discusses this song in detail and there are lots more sources out there.  In any case, the band and album have sufficient notability that, per WP:NSONG, we would not delete regardless and so this should never have been brought here.  The nomination just appears to be forum shopping to make good a bad-tempered and foul-mouthed threat made at the article's talk page, contrary to WP:CIVIL.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Foul-mouthed"? "Forum shopping"? Do you know what those phrases mean? Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (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.