Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamship

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 One Piece discography. The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamship

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Declined PROD. p b p 04:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder, fails WP:NSONG. Giant Snowman 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible A9 Speedy. No article for artist, and in no form of the article, from 2007 forward, can I find an assertion of "why its subject is important or significant". The ref added yesterday is only a passing mention of the song, and the google results provided in that edit summary also fail to demonstrate any apparent importance of the single. Per WP:NSONG, "a standalone article [for a song] is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I'm currently unable to find any evidence that the song meets any of the four criteria listed at WP:NSONG as being adequate basis for notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Merge as advocated by others below is also fine, though I don't see that there's even that much content to merge over. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sink ship - If only A9 existed years ago, this could possibly qualify. Unfortunately, being an ending theme to a notable series is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, where it is already mentioned. I agree with the previous commenters that it doesn't seem to be notable, but we don't have to delete it outright. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A9 or perhaps the merge stated above. I see no reason this article needs to exist on its own. Bensci54 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, as there is already info about this soundtrack in this article we should at the very least redirect it if not a merge - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, logical redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should not have been relisted. There wasn't a single keep vote. p b p 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the relisting was to decide between the positions of merging or deletion. Even though there are no keep votes, that doesn't mean a consensus yet exists on what to do with the article (I have no opinion on what to do with it, by the way). Calathan (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Piece discography—there's little to merge, and absolutely no notability for a standalone article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:19, 27 February 2013 (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.