Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Calling (song)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Calling (song)[edit]

Certainly a notable song by a notable band, but this article says nothing. Anyone doing a search will type "London Calling" and get the album, which gives them more information. An easy keep if anything consequential is said about it, but until then it's useless. I'm all for articles on songs when they're notable and say something useful and interesting (I wrote Rock the Casbah, and would love to see this article approach that one) but if Wikipedia is going to be home to 100,000 articles that say "X is a song by Y" then I'd like to nip this in the bud. Yes, I know, "VfD is not cleanup/expand". I could put a request for expansion on this and wait for something to happen, but an "expand or die" ultimatum might actually get the ball rolling, and if it doesn't we'll get rid of a useless article and hope thousands more don't pop up. I will gladly change my vote if this becomes a real article. -R. fiend 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • As promised I too am now voting keep. Good job to all who expanded wrote this brand new article. And this is no more abuse of VfD than creating a useless substub and forcing others to write your article for you is an abuse of the Requested Articles process. -R. fiend 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll second delete unless it says something. Kappa 05:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK it does say something now, keep. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, you don't pull up the sapling on the grounds that it's not grown yet. You've got to start with something sometime. I was going to try to articulate the song's meaning, but actually I'm not exactly sure about it. Everyking 05:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a clear abuse of the vfd process, the poster even admits this. While I sypathise with the good intentions, vfd is too clogged already to become an extended cleanup forum. 213.206.33.82 05:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is why the stub and sub-stub tags were created. Isn't there a song-stub tag floating around? 23skidoo 05:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Putting tags on this thing (as it was, "X is a song by Y") is basically asking someone to create a new article from scratch. Let people expand things which have some useful information already. Kappa 06:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Szyslak 06:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not Cleanup or Requests for Expansion. Repeat of sentiment of fellow editors. JuntungWu 07:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A stub for something the potential nominator considers both notable and expandible should not be on VfD. Put on a {{song-stub}} or other appropriate tag, take it to Talk:The Clash, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, etc. Keep. Samaritan 07:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added info on lyrics, recording, chart success and critical impact so that it is no longer a stub but a fully fledged article. #15 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs of all time list.Capitalistroadster 09:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bogus VFD. Lack of content is not a reason to delete. It is an opportunity to add content.--Centauri 11:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because it has been expanded. If it had remained as a useless substub, I'd have been quite happy to say delete and list on requested articles, as I would rather there was a redlink than a link to an article that tells you nothing. Average Earthman 11:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with what Kappa and Average Earthman said. Whether you're an inclusionist or deletionist, attacking someone for nominating an article that currently has no useful content whatsoever for deletion is uncalled for. —Korath (Talk) 15:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ditto Average Earthman, Kappa, and Korath. --BM 16:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I ditto that ditto and I believe kudos and not censure are in order for "R. fiend" for being bold enough to bring the problem of factual but woefully inadequate nanostubs to light. While this might not be a cleanup page per se, countless excellent articles have resulted from substandard articles that were listed here. Oh, and someone shoot a Barnstar over to Capitalistroadster, OK? - Lucky 6.9 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I am inclined to agree that having an article on every song is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Xadai 02:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all notable songs by notable bands. —RaD Man (talk) 22:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though the song sucks. Da 'Sco Mon 01:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for notability and kick-assness, would have voted delete for the original version Tuf-Kat 16:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite notable, though it looks like another vote is hardly needed at this point. Antandrus 16:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator went to some length to explain his reasons, but it was still a misuse of votes for deletion. Philip 05:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and guess what... VfD is not cleanup. GRider\talk 17:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ...but it is a fuckload more effective. -R. fiend 23:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Calling_(song)&oldid=852406913"