Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Got an A.K.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 and redirect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freedom Got an A.K.
No calims of notability per WP:CSD#A7. If it not applicable, this is the only article from the group, the others were speedy deleted or deleted per prod. This one was not deleted due to the particullary administrator didn't like the idea. Tasco 0 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know what you mean by "the only article from the group" -- the article on the group still exists, as do the articles on their albums. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I missed the part "single". What I tried to say is that is the only article about a single of the group. Wich means, the other singles (articles) were deleted. Thanks for poiting that out.--Tasco 0 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable song that never charted. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)- Merge and redirect to album. Was a chart single, but may not be notable enough for its own page. If any more verifiable content can be found for the song, then it can be spun back off into its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Not notable, but it's a single, so a small mention could be included. i said 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This was #7 on Billboard's "Hot Rap Singles" chart.[1]P4k 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- That information can be merged in the group's article.--Tasco 0 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per P4k. Hit single = notability. Precious Roy 09:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, that information can be merged in the group's article. This article is worthless, when you just can read the charts in a talbe within the group's and album article.--Tasco 0 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article's lack of content is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a verifiable hit single and is therefore notable. Precious Roy 04:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- We already have 2 million articles... All the charts can be merged in the group's article, just like I said. There's not need to keep this article when it can be merged.--Tasco 0 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:ATA. Calling for the deletion of an article (ok, stub) that clearly meets notability requirements merely because you feel there are too many articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. Precious Roy 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say that as an argument to delete this article. What I did say as an argument is that the article it's not necessary when the information of charts can be merged into the group's article.--Tasco 0 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nowhere does it say an article has to be "necessary" to be on Wikipedia. Precious Roy 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- But there are certain criterias for deletion.--Tasco 0 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And which one would apply to this article? Please be specific. Precious Roy 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already named it in the nomination.--Tasco 0 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- You say no claims of notability. It's a hit single and THAT is a claim of notability. Precious Roy 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, because you added the charts information after I nominated the article. Anyways, now that I see it now, I think the best option would be merge the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which you only just noticed, despite the fact that the fourth person to weigh in here (less than a day after your nom) is the one who dug up the information, and you responded to him. Precious Roy 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, because you added the charts information after I nominated the article. Anyways, now that I see it now, I think the best option would be merge the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- You say no claims of notability. It's a hit single and THAT is a claim of notability. Precious Roy 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already named it in the nomination.--Tasco 0 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And which one would apply to this article? Please be specific. Precious Roy 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- But there are certain criterias for deletion.--Tasco 0 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nowhere does it say an article has to be "necessary" to be on Wikipedia. Precious Roy 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say that as an argument to delete this article. What I did say as an argument is that the article it's not necessary when the information of charts can be merged into the group's article.--Tasco 0 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:ATA. Calling for the deletion of an article (ok, stub) that clearly meets notability requirements merely because you feel there are too many articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. Precious Roy 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- We already have 2 million articles... All the charts can be merged in the group's article, just like I said. There's not need to keep this article when it can be merged.--Tasco 0 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article's lack of content is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a verifiable hit single and is therefore notable. Precious Roy 04:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, that information can be merged in the group's article. This article is worthless, when you just can read the charts in a talbe within the group's and album article.--Tasco 0 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with the album. The article is short, and worthless. -Saint Ryan 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment An article's brevity is not a valid reason for deletion. That's why they have all those different stub templates. Precious Roy 02:00, 16 September 2007 (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.
