Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight of the Dead (2nd nomination)

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 The Devil's Rain. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this song isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Dead

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

(Technically, a first nomination for this subject: the previous deleted page with this title was not connected.)
"Twilight of the Dead" appears to be a non-notable single with no evidence provided of notability in the article itself. Likewise, there is no suggestion of notability in the article on the band that released it (Misfits (band)) nor in Misfits discography. Emeraude (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the lead single from a notable band's first new album in 8 years, and first album of original material in 12 years. There's every reason to expect that there's enough source coverage to improve the article. The nominator's rationale doesn't indicate that they made a good-faith effort to find sources. I wrote the majority of the album article, and the album received plenty of coverage, so I'm reasonably confident I could do the same for the single article. The article and its subject are only a few months old, and given the obvious notability of both the artist and the album the single article shouldn't be too difficult to improve. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No question that the album is notable, and the band. But Wikipedia does not automatically confer articles on every single unless there is a special reason pertaining to the single itself (similar to the 'notability is not inherited' argument for people). As you say, the single is only a few months old, so claims of notability at this stage are somewhat premature. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a supporter of "notability is not inherited", in general, and I didn't mean to imply that the single should be assumed notable just because the band & album are. I simply mean that I presume it's notable, given the obvious notability of the parent topics, and that source coverage should presumably be available from which to expand it. Of course if I do a search and come up empty, then obviously my presumption is incorrect, but I'll give it a shot. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what you or I "presume" is not good enough. There are very few musicians whose every single deserves a place in a separate article. One would expect that it reached a very high chart position/sales or in some way contributed to a wider event. And this needs reliable documentary evidence. WP:SONG is a useful starting point, and states:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. 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. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

On that basis, I don't think it passes. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:NSONGS, but the bar is significantly lower than high sales or chart positions.NSONGS states that if a song has done these things, then it is probably notable (basically that a song that's achieved such is presumed to be notable). All that is required per WP:N, however, is coverage in reliable secondary sources. If a few such sources are found discussing the song/single, then it passes WP:N, even if it never charted or made wide impact. I've dealt with such situations several times in the past.

P.S. I've taken the liberty of notifying User:Joltman of this AfD, since he was the article's creator and has been its only major contributor. Hopefully he'll chime in an opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that- my oversight in not having done so personally. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to album Probably delete, as the title has been used for other non notable articles as well, and there is no reason for this particular article to get the redirect. Single has not charted. The listed reference is talking about the album, not the single (and frankly I think that the ref in general is pretty weak. Its mostly PR and track listing). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to album Sources are not there for a standalone article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2012 (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.