Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right in Two

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 redirect to 10,000 Days, nothing to merge that isn't original research. - Bobet 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right in Two

This is not a notable song. There is no reason why it should have its own page King Bee 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --King Bee 01:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rediredt to album article. Punkmorten 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the album article. Echternacht 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• RD to album. Nickieee 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

yes it is keep it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.116.100 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. No, it isn't. It doesn't meet a single one of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC/SONG. I like the song too, but just liking it isn't enough for it to warrant having a page on wikipedia. --King Bee 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No matter how small the amount of information is, it needs to be kept. Tool songs are hard enough to understand even with help from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.136.12 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. There are four sentences on the page right now. --King Bee 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not released as a single and not otherwise notable. BlueValour 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Same reason as BlueValour, the song has no reason to have its own article. Orichalcon 11:56, 10 September 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.