Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Til I Fell in Love with You

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 Delete and redirect to Time Out of Mind. Consensus is that 'Til I Fell in Love with You is a content fork for which existing reliable source information can be covered adaquately in Time Out of Mind. The listing of other articles in the AfD came to late to be considered in this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Til I Fell in Love with You[edit]

Fails the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC#Songs on every level. Didn't chart, won no awards, not noteworthy, hasn't been performed by any other groups or artists and hasn't been covered by independent works. I have searched for sources and have come up with nothing. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded my rationale for deletion as requested ^{(Seraphim ^Whipp 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC))}:[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; these articles contain content not suitable for an encyclopedia (as they stand).

The fact that notability is "WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE" doesn't mean that it can be disregarded; these articles do fail the relevant outlined notability guideline. Complete lack of proof of notability is a valid reason for deletion as found at WP:DEL#REASON.

I'm not prejudiced to recreation, in fact the opposite, when sources have been found that is exactly what should happen. I just think these articles were created prematurely and don't comply with our encylopedic standards.

Redirect: To Bob Dylan. - Rjd0060 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album article (Time out of Mind), as is done with all articles about non-notable songs. --Ag ü eybaná 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Seraphim Whipp's argument was rebuked wholly on the article's discussion page. As the notability guideline stipulates, this article can be deleted or merged if it acquires "permanent stub" status. The article has only been up for a few hours and as such should be allowed to exist for the time being.--Dawson1066 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. So if we keep it around for some indeterminate period of time, it somehow becomes less notable? What makes this non-notable song notable right now? Redirect until or unless the song beocmes notable, not the other way around. Corvus cornix 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. Originally I had prodded the article but the prod was debated so I brought it to afd. I also tagged another 4 articles with prod but I really do think redirecting those would be best too. Since I am using afd process with this song I don't think ti would be correct of me to simply redirect the rest of them without also using afd. Therefore I have listed these other articles for deletion too:

All from the Time out of Mind album: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Time out of mind was a hugely successful album, both critically and commercially and there's always a slew of media and critical discussion of Dylan's work. Nick mallory 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find any sources? If you say they exist then please add them to the articles and improve them. Otherwise you are basing your judgement on whether there might be sources. Recreate them when sources have actually been found and the articles can prove their notability (which isn't inherited from the album).Seraphim ^Whipp 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related afd : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum Seraphim ^Whipp 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above which - at the time of writing - have no reliable, third-party non-trivial references provided demonstrating their notability. At a pinch, a series of redirects to the appropriate album may be viable, but I'm not sure they'd be the most common search terms. The attempted rebuttal (one "rebuts" an argument, rather than "rebuking" it) seems to have the process of notability around the wrong way. The subject must first become notable, then it can be written about. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The album won the 1997 Grammy Award for Album of the Year [1] which is an award for the "collection of songs", which leads me to believe they're probably notable and may pass WP:MUSIC#Songs 5. It has won a significant award or honor. The articles are 3 days old, why not let someone actually write them? dissolve ^talk 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an award winning song so seems to meet #5 WP:Music#Songs as pointed out above, and it seems to have had good news coverage by independent sources [2] so may meet #1 and #4 as well. --Kudret abi^Talk 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The song itself hasn't been pointed out as an award-winner. The album it comes from was, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.