Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firth of Fifth

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Consensus is that Macan is okay to source and a good standalone article can be created out of existing sources. Also, there is an Allmusic page on the article, which usually is a good indicator that a standalone article should exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firth of Fifth

Firth of Fifth (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)

This article was proposed to be merged with Selling England by the Pound in 2011 [1] but was reverted by an IP in 2013 without explanation. [2] I have attempted to find substantial sources, but even my "go-to" Genesis source, Dave Bowler and Bryan Day's biography, devotes little more than a passing mention to the track and the song was not released as a single or significantly covered by other bands. Therefore I believe it is at best a borderline candidate for WP:NSONG and should be redirected as previously. PS: I like the song. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While I must admit I too like the song, Edward Macan's in-depth analysis suggests that it's not just another track off Selling England by the Pound. It's a single source, but it's from Oxford University Press and analyzes the song as representative of the genre, and that analysis of the song has itself been cited as significant by other sources (such as Progressive Rock Reconsidered and Listening to the Future). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally felt Macan's analysis was too much like a fan's point of view, not a neutral one. Maybe the current article needs to be blown up and started over, hence why I kept options open rather than re-redirecting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Macan's analysis may have a hint of fancruft, but it's rather in-depth and detailed look at structure and design. I don't see any compelling reason to get rid of it. --averagejoe (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (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.