Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avon (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 merge to album articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avon (song)

Avon (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This song has never been released as a single, while the article has no references and fails to assert notability. No significant information that can't be covered in the song's respective album. PC78 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Mexicola (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hispanic Impressions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You Can't Quit Me Baby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Monsters in the Parasol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You Think I Ain't Worth a Dollar, But I Feel Like a Millionaire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Redirect all but the last to Queens of the Stone Age (album), redirect the last to Songs for the Deaf. Corvus cornix_talk 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be rather dissapointed in this site as a whole if these articles are deleted. Not only for it being a ludicrous rule in the first place when considering what other articles are allowed to exist. Surely only a person with extensive knowledge of the band should decide whether these articles are important enough to be kept alongside the singles and albums. I say 'extensive knowledge', as the fellow organizing this has actually made a mistake on the very page I'm discussing. Several points spread throughout the song articles contain information not found in the song's respective album, the one's created by myself especially. The only problem I see is the lack of reference, something that could be easily fixed given time and a little effort. The final point seems to be the articles importance, which shouldn't even be up for discussion when considering other album's (Of varying quality and notability) that have individual pages for every track. Red157 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Any significant information should be covered in the article of the album, unless you can provide some evidence that the song is sufficiently notable in itself to require an article of its own. Songs that haven't been released as singles generally aren't regarded as notable, and with good reason, because there are millions of songs. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments don't tend to carry much weight. I'd love to know how you can justify having Hispanic Impressions as a seperate article. PC78 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic Impressions had only one piece of information of note, but that was removed a long time ago for having no reference. Well essentially it was heresay, and I doubt any reference existed for it. Granted, I wouldn't shed a tear for that article no longer existing. I just think it'd be a shame that some of the information collected over the course of these articles is going to be lost due to lack of referance and their deletion. As obviously the job of incorporating said information into the album articles will fall on the shoulders of a QOTSA fan and not the person who deletes the individual songs. It's a flawed system as a whole when singles have priority anyways. Oh and Monsters in the Parasol would have to redirect to Rated R, not Queens of the Stone Age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red157 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to album articles, not just redirect. Monsters in the Parasol has an image associated with it, so was it a single? If so, that can be kept, or should be AfD'd separately. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's promotional, like "The Fun Machine Took a Shit and Died". Red157 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably needs to be merged as well. A case could be made for keeping it separate if there was a non-promo release of the single. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:53, 22 February 2008 (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.