Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalliwag

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalliwag[edit]

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

Non notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously does not meet inclusion criteria. Could be redirected if the band itself merits an article. Deb (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scalawag as a possible misspelling if the song didn't chart. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but I am a little concerned that this article was nominated for deletion within 12 minutes of its creation. Longwayround (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Longwayround! I see way too many articles being tag bombed or nominated for deletion that have barely seen the light of day. This would seem to be a possible case of BITE. ~~My !vote is Keep for now.~~ Let's give the author a chance. If the article still looks questionable in a month we can send it back to AfD. AfD nominations are not rationed and this isn't a CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the nominator took the trouble to tell the article's creator about the discussion and explain to them how to join it. You could maybe help him/her by advising them on how to make the article demonstrate the subject's notability. Deb (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the author is automatic and done by template when using the curate function. But in any case tagging brand new articles is strongly discouraged. Indeed, I am wondering how thoroughly one could have followed through with BEFORE and still be able to tag the article for deletion within 12 minutes of creation! -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like the creator can be bothered to improve the article, or that anyone can be bothered to help him, so I guess deletion is now inevitable unless you add the multiple independent references that you imply could easily have been found by the nominator. Deb (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has implied such a thing, in my opinion. Longwayround (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. It has been more than twelve minutes now. I also agree with Clarityfiend that "scalliwag" is a common variant of "scalawag" and should probably be redirected there after deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 00:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable song. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to help the article's creator by looking for sources myself but to no avail. Let me echo Clarityfiend and Bejnar in suggesting the creation of a redirect. Longwayround (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regrettably the author has not responded to notes left on his/her talk page and no effort has been made to improve the article. Nor have I been able to find enough to ring the notability bell on my own. I am changing my !vote accordingly, while standing by my original observation that tag bombing or attempting to delete newborn articles (CSD being an obvious exception) is bad form and potentially rude. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then redirect per Bejnar. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2014 (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.