Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Times (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 redirect to One Buck Short. Return to the same status as after the previous AfD; notability of the single has not been established — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Times (song)[edit]

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

See also this AFD from earlier this year. Unreferenced (and possibly NN) article on a single. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now. I found a few sources, one of which might be an RS?: [1] and [2]. The article can be cited now, at least. I won't say anything toward notability, as I'm not sure this doesn't fail WP:Music. If nothing else, I'd say a redirect to the album, but I won't make that my final stance. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The single song doesn't achieve note as a single, and the article is written by someone who doesn't know anything about it. It "seems to be" a live recording, the author thinks. Well, when the song is well known, it will be something people want to look up. Until then, this is a delete. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. :/ If you're going to delete, find a policy or a guideline or an essay and delete per that... --Izno (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, indeed. If an "article" does not offer even an assertion of significance or notability, then that article is an A7 speedy delete candidate. In this case, we have a potential for someone else to possibly, potentially, find some facts about the song, but there has been nothing to testify to any notability for the song whatsoever. Therefore, it fails the deletion guideline on not having any notability. This is in addition to the fact that the article as written probably qualifies for speedy deletion. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The assertion of notability that it makes is that it is the first single of the album, so I do not think it falls as a CSD. As for general (or music) notability, as I said before, I did find sources, neither of which you commented on in your delete rationale — you completely ignored them for whatever reason. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (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.