Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do It for Me Now

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 of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do It for Me Now

Irrelevant article with the same information available on this article. Also, it mentions some rumors that can't be proven. --Greedy 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ——Soulchild 11:04, 03 April 2006
• Keep ——MrPink 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ——James 14:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ——GrahameS 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Shirelord 19:29, 30th April 2006 (British Summer Time) - Articles are available on the other songs. A rumour would defy definition if it had to be proved.

More information is available for this article, is it ok to remove the deletion note?--Zingazin 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

After the release of the album there will be little or no reason to maintain this article. Unless a video or a short film is shot for Do It For Me Now I'd keep the deletion note.--MrPink 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And why do every other track on the album has an article? On The Beatles' albums almost (if not every) every song has an article. I don't think it should be deleted.-Zingazin 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that only a few Tool songs have articles, but that they are all well-chosen. Although I personnally feel that an external link to the Kerrang article would be sufficient for most songs, I see where you're getting at and agree that we can keep the article (in the stub category, like the other tracks).--MrPink 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you vote for deletion or not? And about making an external link, I'm afraid there are only scans of that interview, but in case I find a written one, should I add it? Thanks for your answer.-Zingazin 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep, I haven't found the written interview either unfortunately. It's always nice to have references when you're quoting. Thanks!--MrPink 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed my vote.--MrPink 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-Cory pratt 7:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Like the song, think it is distinct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mguderian (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Umm obviously. It's a single you idiots. --Tykell 16:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Liking a song, or indeed it being a single, is not valid criteria for WP:MUSIC. I don't have a vote to make either way on this, but calling people "idiots" does not a valid argument make. Not every single ever released is deserving of a WP entry, you know. Seb Patrick 10:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That was two votes. I've fixed it.-Drat (Talk) 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm removing the deletion status. It's a single now. --sigloiv 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This AFD process was orphaned. Listing now.--Drat (Talk) 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor release from minor band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive list of every record ever released. -- GWO
• Delete per nominator and GWO. Reyk _YO! 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's released as a single. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article contains no info on the song at all, and it basically amounts to crystal ballism. -- Kicking222 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article's info box results in discontinuity when browsing the singles. There is no real information here -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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.