Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back of the Van (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 delete. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Van (song)[edit]

non-notable single Mayalld (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Think That It Is Notable As This Is The First Single Where She Has Got Her Fans Involved, Plus If Thats Not Proof Enough That It Is Notable It Might Became Notable In The Future So I Say Give It A Chance, Plus I Just Spent 45 Minutes Creating That When There Are Some Pages That Are Two Lines Long And Theres No Effort Put In And Have Not Been Deleted, Please Keep ChillaxNOW (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are You Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Word And Bunching Everything Into One Sentence? Seriously, though. Please read WP:SONGS, the notability criteria for songs. Saying "it will be notable in the future" is looking into a crystal ball which is not allowed. Wikipedia is for things that already are notable. This song hasn't charted and is unsourced, so there's no way it's notable now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear fail of WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first single released by a notable artist seems like something we should document. There are reliable sources about this song: [1] [2]; I'm sure there are more (although they're hard to separate from the non-reliable ones which are extremely numerous). I think these two facts are enough to ignore the fact that the song hasn't (yet) charted. JulesH (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of those reliable? They look borderline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both meet the specific requirements of WP:RS, i.e. they're third party sources published by organisations that exercise editorial control. How reliable they are, I'm not sure. I'm not a regular reader of either. But they definitely meet minimum standards. I also see brief mentions in much more notable sources, e.g. a one-sentence description of the song in the Guardian, a couple of lines in one of the major Australian papers (I forget which), etc. This is enough to convince me of notability. JulesH (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chartage, no awards, no covers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (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.