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 All Hope Is Gone for the moment, at least. Of the comments made here, I can't really put a lot behind the "keep" opinions at present. Yes, the song is from a charting album - but there's no indication at this time that it's going to be released, officially. (And I did a lot of hunting around to try and find a source to indicate that.) There's some application of WAX below as well that are an issue. Finally, the article includes zero sources stating that the song will be released as a single, and had little actual relevant information. When the song is officially released, and when there are some solid references to indicate that it's notable, then the redirect can be removed and the article expanded. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It hasn't been released as a single yet, so there's no need for it right now. The page can be recreated when it is released as a single. All we know is the release date, so it's not really needed right now. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I feel that this song does in fact meet the A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album portion of WP:MUSIC#Songs. It is from an album which has premiered in at least the third highest spot on charts of sixteen differnt countries. The song has been mentioned by multiple notable media outlets—the same reason Psychosocial (song) was was kept from deletion. The article should be expanded, but easily has poetential to become a good article. Blackngold29 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That portion of WP:MUSIC#Songs is only on the condition that it passes the other conditions. For example, it means if the song charts, it warrants its own article, but only if there is enough information to warrant an independent article. In other words, it needs to either be performed by multiple notable artists, charted on a major chart, or won significant awards, but in addition to those conditions, it needs to contain enough verifiable information. So it does not pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it say in adition to? This is the same exact argument that occured about Psychosocial. The article had not yet charted, but it had been (as has Dead Memories) been mentioned by multiple sources, therefore it meets WP:N. I refuse to get sucked into another long coversation, as with Psychosocial, until a few more people let their verdict be known. Blackngold29 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which its spoken is obvious. "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Nowhere does it say that a detailed article implies notability, but it does say that a separate article is only warranted (warranted, not notable) if there is enough verifiable information.

In other words, it basically says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, but a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album," not "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors, that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups, or contain enough verifiable information to warrant a separate article that is reasonably detailed are probably notable. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as far as I'm aware, it doesn't even have an official release date yet, or any real confirmation of actually being a single besides passing mentions in interviews and reviews. It can easily be recreated when some more solid info arises. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to All Hope Is Gone. All that's there is discussion with the artists, which isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Once again this is just a formality that it isn't released yet or entered charts, it WILL be notable and that may well fail WP:Crystal but you know I'm right. Whoever nominated this is jsut wasting the time of other people and it's jsut gonna cause more problems if it's deleted because you're going to have new users who don't udnerstand wikipedia policies wanting to recreate the article left right and center. It's the exact same case as it was with Psychosocial and the result was keep. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It was said further up that this song has received wide media coverage, but that doesn't matter if we only have one reference. It doesn't even have a release date to it, its an incomplete infobox, and the article consists of a short lead section, one quote where the single status is mentioned in passing, and a personnel section. Now, if this has received wide media coverage, its not linked at all in here. And you are indeed right that it dos fail WP:CRYSTAL, it doesn't matter if you are right or not, WP:N says: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." That clearly states that violation of any of those "What Wikipedia is not" policies can be reason to lost notability. In this case, I would say it violates WP:CRYSTAL. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem is that this, Psychosocial and All Hope Is Gone have all had proposed deletions on what are jsut formalities, you know that this will be notable for an article in the future and this whole process is redundant because of that. Granted it does fail policies.. but it won't eventually and deleting it now is just a formality. End of, I'm not prepared to discuss this any further. Delete it. REZTER ^TALK ø 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pretty much certainly the next single, and this is just a repeat of the Psychosocial discussion, and look what happened there. Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A similar article surviving an AFD nomination is not a reason for this article not to be deleted. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no it isn't, but it jsut shows how much of a waste of time this is going to be really. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX? --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is skirting very close to the crystal ball. I know the music industry quite well, and I know that singles are scheduled months in advance. Some editors are going to push this to the very limit. Saying delete would be my first move, but it would violate WP:POINT, so I am going to settle on keep, but this element of the music single articles policy may mean revisiting. doktorb _words^deeds 19:55, 11 September 2008 (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.