Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 no consensus; kept by default.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Baverstock

Much as I love Enid Blyton's books, there does not appear to be sufficient reason to keep this article on her daughter. Connection to a famous person does not implicate notability. Icemuon 00:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find sources that show she was actually published. I can't come up with any. the_undertow ^talk 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found listings for the two books at the British Library. --Eastmain 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible move relevant content to the mother's article. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Asserts no notability at all. Being the daughter of someone notable doesn't mean you get an article on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the author of two books is an assertion of notability. I added the ISBN for each book (which I found at the British Library) in order to confirm that the books are real ones. She has also been the subject of independent coverage, albeit mostly in her role as Enid Blyton's daughter. --Eastmain 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. While being "daughter of" isn't grounds for notability by itself. In this case, it seems to be the tipping point. --Crunch 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while much of the writing about her focuses on her family relationship, together with her writing credentials they're a sufficient case of notability. If not kept, it could at least be merged into Enid Blyton. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto the Enid Blyton article. Nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. Baverstock is only mentioned in newspaper stories about mother, so anything which needs saying about her can be included in that article. The Blyton article is a bit sparse in the personal life section, so it would benefit from a merge. She seems a very ordinary person other than being the offspring of a popular author, Baverstock's own books about her mother are extremely non-notable. Having written a book which has an ISBN number does not prove notability One has no sales rank on Amazon and the other is 2.7 millionth in sales, hardly earthshaking, and clearly a million other authors are more deserving of Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It simply isn't true that Baverstock has nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. She has been "the subject of published secondary sources"; an example of which is linked to on the page. She is well known in Enid Blyton circles and makes many public appearances at literature festivals (I've begun to add these on the page). The page does need to be expanded, but we'll struggle if it's deleted! --Richardob 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd heard of her, and I think the article can be substantially expanded. Deb 21:40, 10 May 2007 (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.

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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Mary Smallwood

Much as I love Enid Blyton's books, there does not appear to be sufficient reason to keep this article on her daughter. Connection to a famous person does not implicate notability. Icemuon 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any reason this wasn't done as a prod? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to give it the same treatment as Gillian Baverstock, for whom I thought there might be some discussion. Icemuon 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Asserts no notability at all. Being the daughter of someone notable doesn't mean you get an article on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of an autobiography and two readers. --Eastmain 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added citations for all three books to the article. --Eastmain 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her status as Blyton's daughter alone doesn't ensure notability. In her own right, it doesn't seem she passes WP:PROF, as authorship itself isn't inherently notable. Recurring dreams 08:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, people who are calling for deletion aren't taking into account her publications. At the very least it can be merged into Enid Blyton. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Enid Blyton article. Nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. Smallwood is only mentioned in newspaper stories about mother, so anything which needs saying about her can be included in that article. The Blyton article is a bit sparse in the personal life section, so it would benefit from a merge. She seems a very ordinary person other than being the offspring of a popular author, Smallwood's own books ther are extremely non-notable. Having written a book which has an ISBN number does not prove notability Her only book which shows up on Amazon has a sales rank of 3.5 millionth in sales, hardly earthshaking, and clearly a million other authors are more deserving of Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:24, 7 May 2007 (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.

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 delete Ryan Postlethwaite 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Vibrations

A bit of a funny one, this — I'm the creator & sole editor of it so could G7 it, but bringing it over just in case anyone sees any good reason to keep it. I created this incomplete & unreferenced stub a couple of months ago as part of a now-abandoned-for-the-foreseeable-future article on journalist & author Barb Lien-Cooper (then just plain Barb Lien), to fill in her back story, as I believe it was the first regular magazine she wrote for; however, having abandoned that article it kicks out the main reason for keeping this one, and noone else seems in any hurry to create an article for her. It's obviously a real magazine (although I think it possibly slips into the wrong side of the big fanzine/small magazine divide); however, pretty much all the significant links are redlinks, and aside from Lien (and possibly Vicky October & Pete Dooley) are never likely to warrant their own articles; I can't see enough people being interested in it without the other articles to act as feeders; it's a orphaned page at present; and the accompanying image has been deleted from Commons (to my extreme annoyance, as I went to the trouble of tracking down the artist & getting consent, but Who Am I To Argue). Can anyone suggest a reason to keep it? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD has never made me choke on my Cup Noodles. Referring to your own work as 'incomplete and unreferenced' is simply awesome. the_undertow ^talk 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wouldn't be particularly hard to source - all it would take would be for me to search through Record Collector & Bucketfull of Brains back issues to find their assorted mentions of it, as they both had a bit of a love affair with PVs & regularly wrote about it; however, since neither has their back issues online & I'm not wildly keen to spend two hours in a copyright library wading through fifteen-year-old magazines, I left it for someone who actually has a stack of back issues in their basement to do the searching. Likewise, I could expand the article easily enough, but for a subject of such low interest there doesn't seem a great deal of point. If anyone actually does write Barb Lien-Cooper (who, with a very odd career ranging from music journalist to winner of Online Comic of the Year in 2004 undoubdetedly does warrant her own article; I only gave up as I could find so little about the woman herself as opposed to her work) I'd probably recreate this in a better form — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. I could see an argument for keeping if the magazine ever had a real public profile, but it seems it had a pretty limited distribution and audience. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fanzine that only ran for 5 issues?! Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting nom... Delete this, and use the title as a redirect to Underwater Moonlight. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now. However, if the Record Collector award was properly cited, this title might be halfway toward notability. I am unable to find anything to fill the other half, but I am not closed to the possiblity that another editor with more research experience in the field might convince me otherwise. Serpent's Choice 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion is similar to the above. —A • D ^Torque 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would put the information about this magazine into Robyn Hitchcock since it started as a fanzine and continued to be largely devoted to him. Maybe if it acquired more expansion in the future it could be moved back to its own article. If its kept it should surely be linked to from Robin Hithcock as a fanzine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspenocean (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with Bob Marley I'd strongly suggest. "Positive vibrations" shouldn't go down the drain or to trashing machine. greg park avenue 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Robyn Hitchcock is notable, the zine won an award, therefore the zine is notable. I'd hate to see a good stublike article on a good zine disappear. As for it being incomplete and unreferenced - that's what new users are for, to add to existing stubs on notable but incredibly specialized topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per nom I agree that this magazine doesn't warrant an article by itself, but the page on said journalist should ever be written then this article should be recreated as a redirect to her. A1octopus 12:09, 14 May 2007 (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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Nimmo

Acticle about blogger fails WP:BIO; ongoing edit war with WP:BLP issues which may be sole rationale for this article's existence. He wrote a book, but its printer is a vanity press. Kendrick7^talk 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only publication comes from a non-notable printing press. As a blogger/photographer, I don't see any evidence that he has made any significant contributions. the_undertow ^talk 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not correct. See my comment below. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Would all contributors to a notable publication be considered notable? Or are you asserting that his particular contributions are significant? the_undertow ^talk 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NPOV bio is invaluable in the case of any writer who's work is sometimes referenced and/or controversial in order to evaluate the credibility of their work (I always search for a bio in such cases); the "ongoing" edit war is no longer ongoing as one party (who was Kurt Nimmo himself) has accepted the current version, which involved changing only a single sentence, as NPOV. The current related "dispute" is that Nimmo's support for a deniers freedom of speech infers (without any other evidence) that he supports the deniers views as well, which is a WP:OR issue, not grounds for deletion. Wayne 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak to his popularity in the blogosphere. Are you suggesting his blog would pass WP:WEB? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man's creative writings seem to amount to very little and the strangeness of his political opinions - that Auschwitz has "discredited gas chambers" for example - is no claim to notability. Nick mallory 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as above. Drmaik 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He also wrote for Counterpunch which appears to be a notable publication. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is notable within the "conspiracy related culture" (Probably a bad way to say it, but I'm not sure how). He gets traffic from sites like Alex Jones' site(s), Jeff Rense's site, and whatreallyhappened.com, I believe. However, writing a biography on this person would be tough, as I see no independent reliable sources. He writes and has ideas about controversial things, which makes good sourcing imperative. If sources outside of his own blog turn up, I would probably decide to keep. BTW, the see also link to new antisemitism seems very POV to me. Keep in mind that if we were discussing Mr. Nimmo at a bar I may agree with you, but it just seems like inappropriate POV pushing. hombre de haha 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP about a blogger 'nuf said. Mangoe 13:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Someguy1221 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm not familiar with how notable he is, I'd like to verify Wayne's assertion that there is no edit-war, and to clarify that there is no BLP-concern. Any concerns were dealt with/were in the process of being discussed. Tewfik^Talk 06:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:51, 9 May 2007 (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.

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 speedy delete G12 as copyvio of [1] and [2]. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something Extra (American musical group)

Non-notable collegiate a cappella group. Previously prod-ed/recreated so brining it here. All info is from the group's website instead of independent sources. No claim to notability rising to the level of WP:MUSIC. Savidan 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per it is cut and paste directly from the Yale website. We want to build an encyclopedia, not reprint one! the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 7 May 2007 (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.

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 speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability, boredteencruft joke article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Keohane

Contested prod: Fails WP:BIO; the only claim of notability is the part-time politician bit, which is not very convincing notability. Also, there are no sources to back up the assertion of notability per WP:V.Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to assert notability. Lacks references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article as its stands seems to imply he's NOT notable. No sources. Claims of "a bitter war of words" and that he "enjoys betting" on a WP:BLP, it should be speedy.
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Even without the WP:BLP problem, he's not notable. Placeholder account 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. He's a politician? Of what? Given his age, more likely to be running for class president than anything notable. Resolute 04:44, 7 May 2007 (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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Juggling Convention

No claim to notability other than what appears to be an OR claim to the highest juggler per capita ratio in the world (don't know how you measure that exactly). Don't see how it could be expanded beyond it's sub-stubby state since I don't believe there's much you can really say on the subject. If anyone can read Hebrew and fancies a stab at sourcing this, I'd be delighted if someone could find grounds to keep it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR. Also per the fact that, once again, I missed it. the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Juggling convention eh? Delete per WP:N MartinDK 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. Sr13 (T|C) 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not appear to be fit for any encyclopedia. RFerreira 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too much OR and not encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 May 2007 (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.

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel fishing

Unsourced, no assertion of notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have sources; see Squirrel fishing#External links. — Quin 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has some sources - but let's go through them:

A person website, by the fellows who invented this "sport", as per the article. This is not a reliable source, and doesn't support notability
A link to a BBC radio episode - this is a reliable source - however, it clearly states that the "sport" is "unknown". Not a strong endorsement for notability.
A link to an article in a college paper - this also doesn't assert that the topic is notable, though I would be inclined to state that it's reliable.
A link to a compendium of sports - however, this is openly submittable, and merely links back to the first source here.
A unrelated article about "people-fishing" which has nothing to do with this article.

So, I tend to feel that this is not "totally unsourced", but what sourcing exists is very weak, and doesn't endorse notability - nor does the article assert any. I'm inclined to believe this is either a very new, or very minor sport, and thus does not meet notability requirements. ~~Delete~~ - looks like it can be sourced now Keep. Haemo 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (formerly ~~Weak delete~~) Weak because the BBC radio source is pretty good, but as noted above that's not quite enough just by itself. Update: vote changed due to additional sources found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a Google News archive search reveals a bunch of additional sources, including one from the Washington Post, that seem to indicate that this frivolous pastime is notable. Krimpet (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, yet silly. Good enough for Harvard so it's okay in my book ;) the_undertow ^talk 03:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The harvard page is a personal webpage for a Harvard graduate student. If you look at his/her main page here, you can see that he/she is a computer science graduate. The harvard page is obviously for fun, not serious research. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was quite understood, as one might infer from the 'winky' emoticon. My reason to keep was simply that it is notable, as silly as it is. the_undertow ^talk 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems students at Harvard University started the trend in 1997 with a Web site, lately clubs have popped up at the Berkeley, the USC, Oklahoma. Strictly speaking not quite notable enough, but sometimes you've just got to WP:IAR and have a page like this in wikipedia.--Work permit 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. Edison 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Google news search shows sources and notability, but when PETA gets wind of this there will be hell to pay!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Together with the BBC radio bit, the Google news articles show ample notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch that the language used stays encyclopedic but otherwise I have no problem with it being kept.--Alf ^melmac 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there seems to be notable sources out there. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humorous commentary on behavior of what are generally suburban, socialized squirrels. I've seen it done. Squirrels are funny. "Sport" is notable for its unconventional nature and the fact that the competition is not against one's self or other humans. Very simple equipment is required to play and it is on the whole non-confrontational as both sides eventually "win." Who wouldn't want to go to Harvard and fish for squirrels. Hopefully some one will tie this in with squirrel risk assessment behavior in another expansion.
Comment Arguments like "this is funny" do not satisfy any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for keeping an article. Edison 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't say "this is funny;" I said "squirrels are funny." Merely a personal observation. If you had read the opinion in its entirety you'd have read my notability argument along with a valid expansion idea. And guess what? "Delete as patent nonsense" is not a valid argument that satisfies any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for deletion. Aspenocean 08:04, 10 May 2007 (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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled Up In Blue

Non-notable band. At the very least, Tangled Up In Blue should go to the Bob Dylan song and this article should be moved mi km 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this group will pass WP:N. I've contacted them for help in finding references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide how they satisfy WP:MUSIC. the_undertow ^talk 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further sources. After a Google search for Yale+"Tangled up in Blue", I see lots of basic verification but it's not clear whether it establishes more than local notability. See WP:LOCAL. Possibly there's enough as long-term repeat festival performer to get past WP:MUSIC guidelines even if no magazine features, et cetera are found. Google search for "New Haven Folk Festival" seems to show only directory listings and a Yale Herald mention, so that long-time gig conveys only minor notability. Every college has undergrad music groups of various sorts; is this one noted in reliable sources as particularly special? Barno 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the song per above. College singing groups abound. Yale just has more visibility than most, but that doesn't make the group notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to the Dylan song. Unfortunately I see no evidence to satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" clause of WP:RS. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a Dylan song. If they are proven to be notable, which I doubt, the name should be changed to avoid confusion for the 999 out of a thousand users who'd be looking for the song. Nick mallory 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness; the only source I see is a dead link. Quadzilla99 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND, only brief insubstantial mentions in sources (how do Yale Daily News, Yale Herald fare per WP:RS?) Redirect to Dylan song. Murgh ^disc. 10:27, 7 May 2007 (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.