Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Anthem (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The National Anthem (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for music. Currently contains a lot of original research. The song hasn't been the subject of enough coverage independent of its album to justify a separate article; it can be sufficiently covered in the Kid A article. Popcornduff (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect - I see nothing here that satisfies WP:NSONGS, just a few excerpts (passing mentions) out of album reviews, a few interview comments, and some random comments about playing it live at concerts. Very little there, and what is relevant, should probably be in "writing/recording/promotion" type sections at the album article. Sergecross73   msg me  13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that the Article is alright to me, but i would redirect it like Sergecross73   msg me  said a few interview comments, and some random comments about playing it live at concerts and not much there> One Day it will be relevant. --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I chose redirect because its a plausible search term, but I really don't see any reasonable expectation for it ever becoming "relevant" (or notable, as I imagine you mean.) Its a non-single from an album that released 15 years ago. Barring any sort of Killing in the Name of crazy re-release situation, it should probably just stay a redirect... Sergecross73   msg me  12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Angry Bald English Villian Man, it sounds like you're actually voting Redirect, not Keep. Popcornduff (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my comment was initially more of a rebuttal of his point...but then I couldn't quite tell what his stance actually was, so I refactored it into a more general response... Sergecross73   msg me  14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Per the recent additions to the article (particularly this one), plus this source and this source, the former of which particularly discusses the song in-depth. This song is a good example of a non-single that deserves its own article. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not just any album track, it's from one of the most critically acclaimed bands of all time at the height of their creativity. There's enough decent info in there to sustain the article, it's more than justified despite not directly meeting the key criteria in WP:Song. Much has been written about (radiohead) songs this era and personally, i'm quite surprised there aren't more. The Beatles seem to have articles for each distinct song (sample size: 4 albums, each and every song had its own article) and Radiohead over time will be just as culturally important.Rayman60 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons stated above. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Aria1561 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think nom's concerns about OR have been addressed, either by removal or by addition of refs. GNG is readily met. And there already seems to be enough material here to warrant a freestanding article (and could certainly be expanded), and the album article is already rather gigantic. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (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.