Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Here To Change The World

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The result was Nomination withdrawn and keep. Navou ^banter 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWAL OF AFD BY NOMINATOR (REASONS EXPLAINED BELOW) --Shaanxiquake 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections to the closure of this AFD (I believe all AFDs are closed without prejudice) and the only delete vote is in concurrence, I'll close this as keep and withdrawn. Navou ^banter 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thoroughly unremarkable song. not on any real album, and only some performance song. also so small that it's too little for wikipedia. this is a severe stub, should be removed because it is thoroughly a waste of space. no point to it, no one's ever heard of this song and no one ever will. Shaanxiquake 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Here To Change The World

STRONG KEEP whoever you are you're targetting the pages I made it's wont work using the same argument twice. it's hooligans like you who ruin wikipedia; just stop this nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paaerduag (talk • contribs)
Speedy keep It appears this article has asserted its importance and is notable due the song writer. Very many new articles started out as small, lets give this one more time. Disagreement on the merits of the nomination. Navou ^talk 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a song performed by a notable artist and is included on an album (I don't know how the nom defines a "real album"). It follows in the vein of similar articles dealing with a single song. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain EO. Precedent has been to only keep those songs which were released as singles or had major significance of their own (e.g. themes to a TV series ec.). This has neither, and while it was definitely performed by a major artist, IMO it is well below the bar of notability. This song is already mentioned in passing in the Captian EO article, so no real need to merge any more either. - fchd 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with fchd regarding the precedent, but would say that the c. 10 year run with the captain EO film in Disneyland might raise it above the bar. Its not being a hit on its own is a bit of a problem, however. SkierRMH,08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have agreed with a redirect to Captain EO BEFORE the song was placed on the Michael Jackson Ultimate Collection, but now that it has been released on that album (yes the album is real) a redirect would only remove valid information from wikipedia. Captain EO is about the film. This is about the song, and the song's importance in particular. there are several song stub articles on wikipedia. but i believe that this is relevant enough to say. and if you have noticed, Shaanxiquake has nominated the only two articles I created for deletion. Coincidence? I think not. why target two, totally unrelated articles which I happened to create? Looks to me like a personal attack. --Paaerduag 12:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at worst, redirect to whichever target houses it. Thoroughly non-notable song in its own right. If Captain EO is the only reason people might search it, house the info in Captain EO. By no means does this merit its own article. GassyGuy 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain EO. Song is not sufficiently notable for its own article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWAL BY SHAANXIQUAKE This has gone far enough. The only reason I voted for this article was because it was Paaerduag's, and we've had a 'history' on wikipedia. I don't want to be blamed again for vandalism. So I withdraw this, because the act of nominating it was purely so that Paaerduag's work would be deleted. I'm already on a thin string (been blocked before) so this is it. I WITHDRAW THIS AFD BECAUSE IT WAS PURELY CREATED ON THE BASIS OF REMOVING THE ARTICLE FOR A PERSONAL VENDETTA. --Shaanxiquake 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting. There still seems to be a view from a number of editors (myself included) that this song is not notable enough for its own article and should be merged. Can this AfD continue notwithstanding the bad faith of the nom? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definate Withdrawl we all know that song articles start out as stubs, and there are also a lot of song articles on wikipedia that are not notable, but no one deletes them. I actually think this is notable, despite my above abhorrence and offensiveness to Paaerduag. I really hope that you will understand that I don't want this article to be deleted anymore. I would feel so guilty if it was. I know that it's only fledgling but I feel it should stay. it was in bad faith that I nominated this anyway. PLEASE don't remove it, or me and paaerduag will start feuding all over again. I don't want this removed. Please just agree to let it stay so that Paaerduag can expand it at his own time. I don't want to be blocked again, or have another row with paaerduag. Please, just let's keep the article. I'm begging you. I don't want to be associated with bad faith nominations anymore. --Shaanxiquake 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Query Are there any actual objections to the closure of this AFD as Nom withdrawn and keep~~? Navou ^banter 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't close this one anyway, I made a recommendation. We shall wait for an admin as there are delete and redirect recommendations as well. Navou ^banter 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with a withdrawn nomination, as this one is odd, so long as it closes without prejudice for renomination. GassyGuy 17:09, 9 January 2007 (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.