Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opening track

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 no consensus. If people think a merge is best, let that be an editorial decision outside of AfD - there is no consensus for anything here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening track

This article doesn't make any sense, and is completely original research. It doesn't even meet with criteria that would make a Wikipedia article decent. Below are reasons--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3:

No Copyright ViolationsY Rather, there is original research. So whoever wrote the article simply rushed through it.
No Vandalism N I noted a lot of gibberish.
No spam N The article describes an opening track in a way that is comparable to an advertisement.
No Content forks. N This shouldn't have it's own article.
Sourced information N There is no references at all. The article consists entirely of original research.
Content suitable for Wikipedia. N This article is in no way of being a high-quallity encyclopedia article.

A article that respects the fact that Wikipedia is a high-quality online encyclopedia should meet what criteria is above. It only meets one out of six major reasons. Therefore, it shouldn't be an article.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3

Keep You sure have some interesting criteria there. They aren't the criteria we usually use to determine whether to keep or delete an article, however. Those are usually WP:N, WP:V and a few others like WP:NOT. This article is about a notable subject that is often written about, as the opening track often sets the theme for an album, and the choice of it sometimes garners special attention. Such as this [1], and surely others. Please review Wikipedia guidelines before nominating any more articles, thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete N as pure original research or personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Album and clean up Album.—C45207 | Talk 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up Opening track and added references. For a concept that is so often discussed, you all seem eager to get rid of this article. What's next, delete Musical note? Gigs (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move per C45207. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that you can't move an article onto an existing article. You all may mean Merge. Gigs (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Merge. Thanks for the lingo help.—C45207 | Talk 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Y as a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia, and per Gigs's cleanups. I don't see any particular reason for a merger Y. Many thanks to the nominator for showing us how to do Y and N. Although I'd rather that nobody ever do this again after this discussion, it's very colorful. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album. Hekerui (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. A dicdef at best. PC78 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A small stub is not a dicdef. I stubbed the article because there were WP:OR concerns (i.e. basically people didn't agree with what it said). Because people disagree about what makes a good opening track, there's plenty of words written on the subject, and some of them in reliable sources. Enough for a small but reasonable article, surely. Gigs (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, this is similar to lead single and should echo how that article is presented. It's a well-known concept in marketing of albums, in the good old days and continues with a persistant culture of vinyl enthusiasts. Delete is innapropriate here. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nothing more than a dictionary entry with a reference, not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR on dicdef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough for even a stub. Add to Wiktionary if it's not already there. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 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.