Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Water (The Triffids 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Water (The Triffids song)

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

Non-notable song/single, fails WP:MUSIC. As the article says: "The single failed to chart in either Australia or the United Kingdom." Emeraude (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calenture (album). This is basically verifiable encyclopedic information that should be preserved. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourced content now for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sufficent independent verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calenture. Some interesting sourced stuff there, but fails WP:NSONG Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work done to improve article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-charting single but nevertheless it is still notable. According to WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG, "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The article is well beyond being merely a stub. Merge to Calenture is not warranted either given the recent work to expand this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WHY is it notable? The article doesn't say it is. No one here has said why it is. "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" does not say it is notable even. Emeraude (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable single released by a notable band. 117.120.18.133 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's two people now who keep because it's a notable song, but no one has suggested why it's notable (other than it's by a notable band, but notability is not inherited). Emeraude (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, The Triffids were a pretty big band at the time. This single would have been reviewed in the music press such as NME, Melody Maker, etc., and no doubt in Australian publications. Much if not all of that coverage is not available online since these publications are not archived on the web. If nothing else, it's notable because the consensus among editors is that it is notable. --Michig (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that WP:MUSIC is totally wrong and ought to be ignored?? Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, as I'm sure you are aware. WP:MUSIC is a guideline informed by consensus, it doesn't trump consensus. This single will have print coverage that is not available online. That is still a pass of that guideline anyway. Details of releases by notable bands constitute encyclopedic content, and if there's enough verifiable information to support a standalone article then we should have one. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emeraude, consider notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." In other words, "Holy Water" is notable because there are sufficient reliable & independent sources that discuss/describe it. As indicated above, the article currently contains numerous such sources on this song. WP:MUSIC has not been ignored but notability has been established in a different way, rather than citing an appearance on a national chart. The article mentions those sources and even provides quotes from them so it is not valid to claim that there is no indication of why the song is notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per shaidar above. Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (which WP:MUSIC says applies to musical compositions just as to anything else). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG threshold appears to be met. Notability for a song is not solely determined by an appearance on music charts. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2012 (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.