Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack Music (3rd 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 Late Registration. Combining this AfD with the recently closed one, a redirect is appropriate here. Will protect after closing. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Here we are again. This was closed as redirect 6 weeks ago, now the editor who made that one necessary is edit-warring to reinstate a substantially identical version. They claim the article "was different way back in August". I am honestly not seeing the tiniest bit of change in demonstrated notability from 6 weeks or 12 years ago. Suggest reinstating redirect and then giving the bloody thing a rest... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this now a case of WP:G4? Redirect and Salt? Govvy (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would be my inclination too, but they claim that the thing is now Of Demonstrated Notability with its new coat of paint, and AGF etc... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect) and salt. Seriously. What a waste of editors' time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Late Registration then Salt to prevent recreation without discussion on talk page or going through WP:AFC. When comparing the last version before it was merged (Revision as of 11:36, August 25, 2018) to its current version (Revision as of 08:16, October 11, 2018) [1] I don't see much difference that establishes notability that would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Restoring the redirect and fully protecting the redirect to prevent recreation maybe required. If any editors want to re-create the article while the redirect is fully protected they can go to the talk page or submit a draft via Articles for Creation process. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I can just about see a single source in a search, not enough to suggest notability. Given the history of the article being recreated despite repeated discussion, salting is necessary. Hzh (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. And The Morning (song) at No.119 also In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And The Glory (song) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect - redirect remains appropriate but should be protected to prevent editing until someone can produce evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As above. This editor clearly does not understand what makes a song independently notable. And also as said above, what a waste of time and energy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2018 (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.