The Rude Gesture: A Pictorial History: OwainDavies ( about ) ( talk ) edited at 11:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What about the other singles that are still pages?  I've made similar edits to the ones that are still there.  And if there's a different criteria for WP:NMUSIC then can you point them out?  I'll take a look.  TTrentham ( talk ) 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I read it and I see the criteria that you're using.  But if that's the case, then I guess I'm arguing for consistency.  And I don't really want to do that because I don't agree with it.  Why is this policy in place?  It's effectively saying that there is never going to be a page dedicated to a single unless it's REALLY popular.  And I'm not sure I can even understand what "REALLY" is defined as based on the criteria that are listed.  TTrentham ( talk ) 22:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, who's going to go through and delete ALL of the articles that exist that don't meet that criteria?  There have to be quite a few, not just for Shellac.  TTrentham ( talk ) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that's the implication, but this article clearly doesn't meet policy.  I don't really see that almost any single would be notable enough for it's own article, especially for minor bands.  Really should just be for those with a particular impact.  As for the others, we can only solve one article at a time OwainDavies ( about ) ( talk ) edited at 16:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we can solve the inconsistency for all of Shellac's singles.  It's just a few.  It's no big deal one way or the other to me. I was interested in getting involved and I just happened to look this single up and wondered why it didn't have a page when the other two from the same era did.  I can do the opposite and request that we delete the other ones if that's the policy that Wikipedia is enforcing now.  Clearly it wasn't when those were written.  TTrentham ( talk ) 00:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 5 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] review from Punk Planet and the already present AllMusic review may be enough to keep this.  Didn't find much else, though there's also this brief mention which would make for a good pullquote.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of having more editor's evaluate the article and its sourcing.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  In addition to the two critical reviews (All music cited in the article and the Punk Planet review provided above), there is also coverage in Peter Buckley, ed.  (2003).  The Rough Guide to Rock .  Rough Guides .  p. 930.  ISBN 9781843531050 .  in which there is some commentary on the single as well as a claim that the song topped the  Billboard Indie chart.  The song is also included in a list of "Important 7 in. Releases" in Andrew Earles (2014).  Gimme Indie Rock: 500 Essential American Underground Rock Albums 1981-1996 .  Voyageur Press.  p. 393.  ISBN 9781627883795 .  There is also some commentary on the song in Colin Larkin, ed.  (2006).  "Shellac" .  The Encyclopedia of Popular Music .  MUZE.  p. 1970.  and Colin Larkin, ed.  (2000).  "Shellac" .  The Virgin Encyclopedia of Nineties Music .  Virgin Records .  p. 352.  ISBN 9780753504277 .  Was a proper WP:BEFORE done?  4meter4 ( talk ) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus