- 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. 1ne 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N; also based on WP:SONG. Prior to replacement of information from American Beauty (album), the page had little to offer in the way of WP:N. A user then moved information over from the main album article. I then created a redirect, and moved the vital information back to American Beauty. This redirect was contested. Also, a Google.com search of "Box of Rain" returns hits of mainly lyrics sites and no distinctive sources of analysis on the song or it's history (other than the Annotated "Box of Rain", which is already used as a reference). I am asking for a merge and redirect of the Box of Rain page. Since the relevant information was transfered, I am changing the request to just a delete, as per User:Will381796. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as my understanding of policy, requests for merges and redirects should not be made on the AfD page. Such discussion should be made on the page's individual discussion page. will381796 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Moeron eviscerated the content when he merged it back into American Beauty (album). Box of Rain is far more significant than some song articles Moeron has created, such as obscure B-side Born Cross-Eyed. And it's more notable than every obscure Grateful Dead "Dick's Picks" album that Moeron has been churning articles out for. The orientation of WP:SONG is semi-useless for artists like the Grateful Dead who were not singles-oriented. Furthermore WP:SONG currently punts notability criteria to Wikipedia:Notability (songs), which is still in discussion. Song articles have run wild, with many insignificant U2 and all Beatles songs having articles, even ones McCartney no longer remembers. Nevertheless, Box of Rain qualifies per WP:SONG based on "Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music" (American Beauty era rock-folk-country-psychedelic hybrid, cf. New Riders of the Purple Sage and others that followed) is and "Is the signature song of a performer" (Phil Lesh). Wasted Time R 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very sorry that you feel that way about my contributions. With these discussion on WP:AFD, make sure to put '''Keep''' before your discussions above, though it is very evident. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looking at the "what links here", Box of Rain has been used in a soundtrack Freaks and Geeks (soundtrack) and its sound sample has been used to illustrate the Music of the United States article! Neither were put in there by me, nor did I create the article (although I did expand and improve it). Wasted Time R 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While the song appeared during an episode of Freaks and Geeks, that doesn't automatically create WP:N. As for the Music of the United States, the inclusion of a sound file by another user is different than the inclusion of the song to that article based on a referenced article or other source. Also, I don't think anyone is implying you created this article. Again, thank you kindly for your input. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looking at the "what links here", Box of Rain has been used in a soundtrack Freaks and Geeks (soundtrack) and its sound sample has been used to illustrate the Music of the United States article! Neither were put in there by me, nor did I create the article (although I did expand and improve it). Wasted Time R 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Moeron also redirected out several other Grateful Dead song articles at the same time, most of which actions were justified (they were the sort of pointless "X is a song on album Y" articles that didn't say much else). But Box of Rain's article has compelling material. The story of its creation illustrates that even at the height of the so-called hippie/counterculture era, family and generational considerations were still paramount. And how Lesh composed it with vocal nuances but not words is also interesting. And its concert performance history also illustrates how sometimes great material can be forgotten and then refound. I'm asking for some common sense here. Which article do you think people will get more out of reading, Box of Rain or Dick's Picks Volume 15? Wasted Time R 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*Keep. This is a bad faith nomination. Anything the GratefulDead do is notable. It appears there is enough information for its own article, so there shouldnt be a merge, and I see AntiVandalBot even reverted the attempt to redirect it. SynergeticMaggot 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason the bot reverted my one edit was because I left off a "t" in "redirect", so it didn't show up as a viable redirect. Since it looks like I blanked the page and just left "#REDIREC American Beauty (album)", it thought it was a bad faith edit. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. I've added a few references to show importance, and I'm going to be adding a few more. I've changed from keep to speedy. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't know that it can be speedy kept but this is an easy vote. Notable song despite its not being released as a single. GassyGuy 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Wasted Time R. One of the few modern songs to be widely noted as influential without release in single form. Barno 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not currently a speedy candidate. Per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article asserts the songs notability in the reason it was written, it wasn't a cash cow that storms the charts. Mallanox 21:45, 21 August 2006 (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.