Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breed (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. Enough reliable sourcing is apparent to pass WP:GNG. Therefore, this article's subject is deemed fit for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breed (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song has a single reliable source, with content that could easily be merged to the album article. It is a stub that is unlikely to expand. The Writing section is completely unsourced, the cover version by Otep is not notable, and the Bruce Pavitt interview is probably the only reliable publication you could find for this song. I propose merging the Pavitt interview into Nevermind and deleting the rest as it's all supported by songfacts.com, an unreliable source. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that it does receive detailed analysis here, for one. So that's one bona fide bookref. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Two reliable references which discuss it, one with detail. I'm not convinced, unless we're able to write decent articles on these subjects with solely these two references. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and neither am I. I'm a big fan of Nirvana but I don't think that a non-single like "Breed" deserves its own article, at least not based on what I've found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this matters, but it was a song in a 2007 baseball video game. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did it gain anything from this? No. Thus, irrelevant. It could be added, but wouldn't save it from AfD. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I just wanted to point that out in case it mattered. I don't care about this article 1 way or the other. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge per nom, per my comment above~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Nevermind, which only has passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nirvana's Nevermind is one of the most successful and high-profile albums ever made, so you would think enough coverage would be available for even the non-singles. Nevermind is probably one of the few albums where every song from it could potentially have it's own article. If enough coverage can be found, I'll gladly vote "keep" here. I'll look for some soon. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, I've found these, ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) and those are just from a brief search, so I'm going with keep. I'm sure there's more. @DannyMusicEditor:, @Shawn in Montreal:, @Northamerica1000:, what do you all think? Kokoro20 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I had found several of these, but even in your brief search you've added a couple I hadn't found. I can't see why this doesn't meet WP:NSONG. It would be great if you could also add these to the article but of course that isn't a requirement of Afd -- only that they exist. Change to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these six enough to build a decent article, tho? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 13:21, 27 July 2016 (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.