Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Ordinary Morning

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ordinary Morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

notability? little content, basically nothing but a tracklisting that could be left on the main article Alan - talk 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It made No28 in the United Kingdom's chart, which is enough for it to pass Wp:MUSIC. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a top 30 hit it's notable. Could perhaps be covered in a discography article but let's keep it first and worry about that later.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a song or album charts doesn't make it notable. The article has little context to back up any possible notoriaty. Alan - talk 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts...are probably notable."--Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but how does that constitue it having it's own article? Alan - talk 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. That is the whole reason for the focus on notability ... notability means (for WP purposes) that it warrants its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability (music)--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but if fails wikipedia's guidelines for articles Alan - talk 04:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could propose merging the article (maybe list it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers) after the AFD discussion is closed. snigbrook (talk) 23:46, 21 November 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.