Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Red Sandman

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 and merge with Lordi. As far as I can see, multiple reliable sources are not available for this song. This fails WP:N, although this article does deserve space on the parent article. The delete comments are very convincing, but I am concluding merge/redirect and the edit-history remains intact, interested users may merge content as they deem fit. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Red Sandman

Blood Red Sandman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "notability most certainly ascertained; only 6 songs ever became music videos for this band, first Finnish/first rock Eurovision winners, all were chart successes, too. And this wasn't merged w/ Lordi." Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs.— coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Important song by very popular EU band. Rockstar915 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please demonstrate that the song fulfills wp:notability. — coelacan talk — 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Are there multiple non-trivial references about this song, separate from coverage of the album? If not, then there is no reason to have a separate article for the song instead of mentioning it in the article for the album.-MsHyde 03:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There don't seem to be any non-trivial sources for this online. Unless some non-online sources have offered coverage, it's hard to see how it meets WP:N. JulesH 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Delete Unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article by the end of the discussion period for the nomination to show that it was a hit song. Added ref showing it reached #17 on the charts in Finland. The band is notable, and the song achieved notability in that country. Inkpaduta 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if it were number 1 in Finland, that wouldn't mean that the song itself is notable to have its own article independent of Lordi. There are tens of thousands of number 1 songs. They don't automatically get to have their own articles, unless they are the primary topic of multiple third party reliable sources. I'm not seeing any indication of this at all. — coelacan talk — 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain Keep - The post-AfD external link added by Inkpaduta establishes that this article satisfies criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Seventypercent 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's notability for bands, not songs; that would get Lordi an article. The song itself needs independent sources of its notability, and I haven't yet seen any sources covering it as a primary topic. — coelacan talk — 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've changed my vote to Abstain to reflect this. Seventypercent 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You seem to be applying your own strict criteria here. What parts of the WP:N guidelines suggest that the subject of an article should be the primary topic of any given sources? AdorableRuffian 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It has to be non-trivial coverage. ""Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." This is widely regarded to mean the subject of the article is the primary subject of the coverage. That is exactly what WP:BIO says, for example, but only to make it clearer. Specifically, WP:N does say that it must be the subject. In a newspaper piece about Lordi, the band is the subject of the article. It's possible for there to be more than one subject, I'll grant, but that is not the case in any coverage yet presented here. All the coverage has been nothing more than passing mentions of the song. And "a guideline" does not mean "something we can pretend doesn't exist". Notability is required, it is part of policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, non-notability is one of those things that requires deletion. Again, one cannot write a Wikipedia article from a passing sentence or two. In order to be verifiable, the topic must have plenty of third-party reliably-sourced coverage. That's what notability establishes: that enough such material exists. If this article is never going to expand beyond a stub, then it must be merged. If it can expand beyond a stub, that would only be because there are notable verifiable sources to rely on, so let's see them. — coelacan talk — 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Firstly, even if it cannot be expanded beyond a stub, that would not in itself be a reason to delete the article in my view. Even a stub can be a valid article, there is nothing to say it must be merged, and there are some advantages in maintaining a separate article (e.g. categorisation and infoboxes). Nobody is disputing that notability is required, the reason we have AfD at all (instead of having admins just zap every article on sight) is because notability is subjective. As for WP:BIO - that is about people, not songs, so does not apply here. Taken absolutely literally, the phrase "the subject..." in WP:N actually implies that the article subject should be the ONLY subject of a cited work - which is evidently absurd if interpreted as a requirement - I would guess that almost no sources meet this requirement. As the literal interpretation makes no sense, I would be more inclined to interpret it as "a subject" - if "the primary subject" is actually what was meant, then the guideline page should say so. This is actually just a semantic argument over something which isn't cast-iron policy anyway. AdorableRuffian 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major chart hit by notable band. This is a somewhat less clear cut case than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song) - see my comments on that particular AfD for a summary of my views. AdorableRuffian 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter that it was a major hit. That's not enough information to write an article from. Now why, by the way, do you say this is a less clear cut case? What's the difference, exactly? — coelacan talk — 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Simply because this was a major hit, but not a No.1 hit. It's not that much less clear cut, to be honest. We may well disagree as to whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article from. A relatively simple stub is fine, it does not have to be War and Peace. AdorableRuffian 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep released, charting singles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Charting singles should be notable enough, I would hope. (jarbarf) 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing wrong with maintaining a small article when that's all we can get. Philwelch 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all articles on single songs. (Yes it's a silly and non-consensus reason, but no less so than the keep votes above.) More seriously, song does not have notability independent of the band so it should be deleted. Eluchil404 07:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I worried some time about adding my opinion to these AfDs, as not anly did I create the articles, but share a username with one. However, not only are charting singles notable, more importantly, here and here, we've already decided not to merge these articles into Lordi. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:35, 14 February 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.