Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (2nd nomination)

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 Revolutionary Vol. 1. And locking Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song)
• Articles for deletion/Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (2nd nomination)

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Repeatedly redirected and made again, last agreement was to redirect it to keep the link and then it was restored. Short answer is this song fails WP:NSONG. It was never released as a single, let alone charted. It has not won a major award. It has not been recorded and released by other artists. It has been mentioned in reviews of the album or interviews with the artist, but that does not make it notable in its own right. It has been listed in online filler lists of violent or frightening songs, but that does not transfer notability. There is a phenomenal threshold of notability for a song that was never released as a single. The closest I can think of would be Eminem's "Kill You" (which does not have an article) which was condemned in Congress for its lyrics, led to calls to arrest him on arrival in Canada and was sued for plagiarism. What does "Dance with the Devil" have that puts it above any other album track by thousands of other artists, most of which have much more coverage but still don't meet the threshold? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Smartse found book sources mentioning the song. Czar commented that the song was mentioned briefly in passing in the sources and it was not enough to justify splitting a page off from the album. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• But are you advocating for deleting the article? Otherwise the consensus to redirect should be made on the talk page of the song or album (alternative to deletion) czar 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The redirect is continuously made into an article again, and just redirecting it could turn into a one-on-one edit war unless there is a community agreement. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect per the nominator and the logic of the previous attempts at redirection. This time with the proviso that either the redirect is create-protected or that continued restoration is considered disruptive and thence blockable. On edit: In fact, I don't know why we are even here, or why what I suggest is not already occuring  :) per the previous deletion discussion, the closing admin said Consensus is to redirect to Revolutionary Vol. 1, but that's already done, so I don't think there's anything more to do here. I'm not going to protect the page; that can always be done later if it turns out to be necessary. An excellent close, which would do well to be re-applied here more vigourously. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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.