Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Fingers

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 Enter the Chicken. consensus is against retention - a merge of content may be appropriate, and for this reason, I am setting up a redirect as the result of this close Fritzpoll (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Fingers

Article for an individual song that has no real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. references give no indication of notability and do not go beyond trivial coverage. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Bucketheadland but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The song features high profile guest musician Saul Williams and, besides being released on the album Enter the Chicken (2005), was used as part of the soundtrack for the highly successful 2005 movie Saw II. Media coverage included MTV and the Boston Herald, as stated in the article. The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new sources which mention the song are all trivial mentions in reviews for the album on which the song appears. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial third party coverage is just one way to gauge notability. Taken together, the sources allow for a reasonably detailed article to be written. WP:CREATIVE says that people who make a significant contribution to a work of fiction are notable and since this song is on the Saw II soundtrack, the same reasoning can be extended to the song. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CREATIVE is for people, not for things they create. Other thing like WP:MUSIC (which directly adresses songs), Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) are there for their creations. Extending the notability as you suggest would in many cases contradict these other guidelines. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the double standard is disturbing when compared to articles like this: 237 (song) - around for three and a half years and offering much less than "Three Fingers", "We Are One", "The Ballad of Buckethead" or "Spokes for the Wheel of Torment". Not to speak of all the songs included to this quick list: User:HexaChord/AfD. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No double standard. I do not know the contents of every page so I can't be expected to treat each page the same. When you find a page like that you could yourself do something instead of expecting someone else to. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that Hexachord redirected the article under discussion at AfD when consensus had not yet been reached, so I reverted that to facilitate discussion. Not that a merge might not have been the right thing to do. I can't judge the actual notability or the significance of the mentions, but I do think combination articles tend to be a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated WP:ATA, especially the topics WP:JUSTA and WP:PERNOM. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (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.