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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forty Five Hundred Times[edit]

Forty Five Hundred Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A popular song among Status Quo fans perhaps but that alone is not suitable for inclusion. There simply is no reliable coverage to help pass GNG and the fact it was never released as a single means the likelihood it ever charted it next to zero. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from scarce reliable coverage, it doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC to me and hence delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Yeah, on second thought, merge and redirect to Hello! (album). Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hello! (album). I'm a big fan of 1970s Quo (blush) and this is a great song... but it's very unlikely that there exists enough coverage to make a stand-alone article for this. That said, it's one of the group's best-known album tracks, and I can see people using it as a search term, so a redirect to its parent album seems the best solution to me. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 No need to blush, I met John Coghlan when his Quo covers band played a local pub, and before the gig started, he said "if you think we're going to do stuff like "Marguerita Time" .... hahahaha, we're going to do the real Quo!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: no coincidence he left the band just before they recorded that song and the Back to Back album... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be telling me you like Quo's version of "Roadhouse Blues" more than the original next (like me)! Anyway, has the 5x expansion of the article changed your mind about simply merging? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changing my vote to keep thanks to Ritchie333's additions... I still think a couple of the references are dubious, but there are enough reliable ones (AllMusic, Record Collector, the two from TeamRock.com which are almost certainly articles reproduced from Classic Rock), and as noted in the article, it's appeared on both the classic Quo live albums, indicating that it was a popular song to play in concert. Thank you Ritchie for proving me wrong that there weren't any sources out there about this song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect- as per Richard3120. Don't know the song, but if its as well-known by fans as he claims, I can't see the harm in linking it back to the album.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with either article on Status Quo or with Hello! (album). This article points out that the song has never been released as a single, and says it is one of Status Quo's longest songs. If this is so, this information could more adequately be conveyed in a longer article than in a stand alone article. Vorbee (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hello! (album). Excelse (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to its respective album. Not enough sourcing to meet the GNG, but its a plausible search term, and "redirects are cheap". Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Jeez, d'y'all think Quo did "Rockin' All Over the World" and nothing else? The song has appeared on two studio albums with different line-ups, on several live albums and compilations, name-checked by reliable sources as one of Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt's favourite Quo songs (and who am I to argue?) and is a kick-ass live track (alright, I like it, but I'm not directly using that as a reason to keep). I have expanded the article with numerous sources; take another look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "... that Forty Five Hundred Times was Rick Parfitt's favourite guitar moment in Status Quo" would be a good DYK for 24 December - the first anniversary of his death. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: surely your argument should not be I like it but I like it, I like it, I like it, I like it, li-li-li-like it... Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well known song. Article well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have notability outside of merely the album from which it came. There are enough RS provided for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of the sourcing is crap (H2G2 should probably be blacklisted as a source), but there's non-trivial coverage that's about the song and not just the album it is on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Marginal, perhaps, but it comes down to keep or merge for me, and there's too much to be reasonably merged elsewhere. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HEY. Few songs can have the sources of this article, also there are print sources, we have to assume good faith. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The relisting was probably a tad bit unnecessary. As the nom, I am fine with a keep; hardly any of the sources are actually about the song but it is more convincing than a song that is only recognized for charting for a week and nothing more.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2017 (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.