Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys song)[edit]

Non notable songs, no sources, no hope of expansion, will likely be contested if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beach Boys are a notable band, and spinning their songs off into separate articles makes sense, rather than clogging up the main article, or simply undoing all this work by deleting. Greenman (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Greenman. Also, though, according to WP:N, the general notability guideline is: "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." There are at least two sources which deal with this song in sufficient detail, Inside The Music Of Brian Wilson by Phillip Lambert, and Andrew G. Doe & John Tobler's Complete Guide To The Beach Boys. I'm sure that more info can be found in Keith Badman's book and I remember Timothy White's The Nearest Faraway Place covering this era of the band fairly thoroughly. So, the songs are notable, there are plenty of sources available, and the articles are a mixed bag, some are fine the way they are, but others could certainly be expanded. MookieZ (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every damn song is notable though. Do you really think that we could write more than three sentences about each song? Yeah right. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK SONGS ARE INHERENTLY NOTABLE?!?!?!?!?!! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a response to me, I would say that I do not think that songs are inherently notable. But, songs which pass the notability requirements are, by definition, notable. I would also like to point out that Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys song) is longer than 3 sentences, and yes, I think a similar length article could be written about any of these songs. And I would urge you to not get so upset. MookieZ (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Beach Boys are a highly notable band, and there is significant coverage for nearly all of their works, as stated above. A few of these songs charted in some way or another (Don't Go Near the Water as a B-side, Student Demonstration Time in Australia) and are additionally notable for that. Besides, there is certainly a precedent for having articles for every song for very notable bands (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd, for example); the Beach Boys are as notable a band as these, based on how much coverage they have received. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mostly per MookieZ. Although these songs cannot inherit notability from the Beach Boys, the fact that there are multiple independent sources that deal with these songs does generate notability for them. And that would apply to the bands listed in TheCatalyst31's reply as well. Rlendog (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to bother looking up the precise wording of policy and guidelines, because common sense says that any song by the Beach Boys will have had substantial coverage in reliable sources. Can't we concentrate on getting rid of the articles on releases from Youtube and Myspace bands rather than those that have stood the test of time? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense hint at keep, the quality of the song sounds like keep, but the coverage from 3rd party sources seals the keep !vote for me. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Not seeing any evidence of any due diligence. Nomination asserts that redirection would be contested but this does not seem to have tried nor does the matter seem to have been discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 29 May 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.