Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daze (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. Courcelles 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daze (song)[edit]

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

This article goes to some lengths to show how unimportant the subject is, asserting that "so far it has not made a major impact", unsurprising since it's form the "upcoming debut album" of an artist whjo does not appear to have a Wikipedia article. Number 76 is a subsidiary chart is as close as it gets to a claim of notability, and the article itself says this is not significant. Non-trivial independent sources? There are none. Notability by association with the producer is all that remains, and as we all know notability is not inherited in that way. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Normally a redirect might be appropriate, but there is no artist or album article to redirect to. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (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.