Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au Revoir

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 Malice Mizer. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au Revoir

Is not notable per the guidelines established at Wikipedia:SINGLE#Notability. Any useful material from this article should be included in the album article and this page should either be deleted or describe the French phrase. Enigma^msg 18:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the notability guideline linked above:

Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Per the guideline, all the articles I bundled with this AfD should be deleted or merged to the appropriate album articles. Enigma^msg 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why don't you be bold and merge them then, as per the guideline you quoted, instead of bringing it to AfD? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because people revert when when singles are redirected to albums. I don't have a choice here. Enigma^msg 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I have the same problem too. I get an admin to put a protection on the page. It seems to help. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The policy is that entries that are not notable on their own should be covered in context. Protect to avoid revertion without proper expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per guidelines, common consent, and common sense. If you've got reversion problems, then get protection. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they should be deleted, but if people are going to keep hammering me about this, I will redirect and if anyone reverts, I suppose you think I should edit war back and forth? Enigma^msg 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not the only one who favors deletion here, as deletion and recreation as a redirect would be the common sense approach. Enigma^msg 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect in order to preserve visible edit history for GFDL. If someone reverts the merges and redirects, I'll be happy to protect them after redirecting them again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If an admin is willing, this AfD can be closed. I don't think I can withdraw because someone else said to delete. I am willing to merge all the articles and watch them. I will come to you if I am reverted. Enigma^msg 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient reliable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect in order to preserve visible edit history. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or expand if you can find more relevant infomation to add to these article(s) then that would be the best option. Otherwise, merge them with the main article(s)Mako Addicted (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I non-admin closed this discussion earlier, and Enigmaman reopened it because there were comments that favored deletion. Jamie^☆S93 02:09, 12 April 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.