Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Come Clean (rag)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 3 May 2020 (Come Clean (rag): Closed as redirect (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Paul Sarebresole. Closing as redirect right off the bat rather than merge because multiple editors have asserted there are no sources (and therefore nothing verifiable to merge). Content remains undeleted in the history should anyone wish to source and merge it. ♠PMC(talk) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come Clean (rag) (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)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the person or the band is notable. What matters is the song. The song doesn't inherit notability. What matters more is having sources from which to write material about the song.Vmavanti (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<comment removed; response below is to a different comment>
AfD is for deciding whether articles should be deleted or not - whether a bluelink should turn red. People use it as an omnibus cleanup facility, for mergers, redirects, and article improvement, but I take that as unfortunate scope creep. If you have a problem with an article that is not related to whether it should be turned into a redlink, consider WP:ATD. Chubbles (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using it as an "ominbus cleanup facility"? When? Where? What people are you talking about? And since when are you against red links? In the past you have argued with me many times about how Important it is to create them. Now you use it as a rhetorical strategy to avoid the dreaded red link that will be created. You don't say "delete". You say "whether a blue link should turn red" on the assumption that people recoil at red links and will therefore agree with you. It's a slick move but a desperate one. I doubt it will work. So far it hasn't. And since when are you against "scope creep"? You have argued with me in the past about all kinds of changes you would like to see to expand Wikipedia. Expansion is practically your creed. That's the problem with many "discussions" on Wikipedia: The inability to accept limits. I don't have any rhetorical strategies. I stick with honesty. I remain flabbergasted at how attached people can become to these articles and how emotional these discussions get when all we're talking about is deleting inert data on a computer screen. Why do people pop up to "save" and "rescue" articles. People are rescued. Not articles. You understand no one's being killed here, right? No one's being harmed. Except maybe the nominators, who are always attacked by the members of the Church of Infinite Expansiveness.Vmavanti (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2020 (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.