Talk:Phonefreak Honey

Re: Hangon

The A9 criteria is not applicable, as the article's article does exist (see Sweet Jesus). The record does assert notability (lack of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion, but lack of assertion of notability is). It was covered in an interview with Melody Maker magazine and was their single-of-the-week. This is all covered in the article and references section. Cycle~ (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favour of retaining the article. The group, and the single, are both artefacts of note in the history of the UK indie music scene, particularly in the 90s. Both are well discussed and references to both can also be found in the trade journals of the day - it would serve the public interest if the article was retained.

Also, I'm not against a merge with the main article per se, but there's slightly too much information to neatly retain the formatting and readability of the main article should the single's article be merged with the band's - it would look rather ungainly - that's my reasoning for retention as an article in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherwoods (talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Christopher (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing the PROD notice after posting this to allow a further discussion here. The fact that the song has been covered in Melody Maker is a clear indicator of notability, and the record was chosen as the magazine's single of the week. WP:NSONGS implies that although articles on individual (non-album) releases often don't have articles, ones that may potentially grow out of stub class – and coverage in the national music press seems to me as if this article may grow further as more information is researched. Cycle~ (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a citation for inclusion in a Rough Trade book. Cycle~ (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)