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. Headcount split down the middle (with a lot of non-sequitur rambling on both sides). The fundamental debate here is about the quality of the sources, and neither side has made a convincing enough argument to negate the other side.

As a side note on policy, it's generally a bad idea to "reformat" other editors comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONG on various levels for not meeting non-trivial RSs, no awards and no charting. Also, majority of coverage is for the looks of the actress Katrina Kaif in the song and not really about the song. Views of non-RS sites like bollyspice.com, bollywoodlife.com, bollymeaning.com, englishdekho.com, indiawest.com, etc. don't matter. Also, Youtube hit count doesn't really talk about notability due to the click frauds that happen. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

NOTE

Editor Human3015 has made many "NOTES" and "Comments" on this debate at various places on this page. I have moved them together at the bottom of the page so that they are separated from the actual debate. No text has been changed and timestamps have been preserved. I hope no one is offended, this is merely a cosmetic formatting change in order to make the page "look" better. You can revert me without pinging me if you oppose this formatting change. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Nominator has selectively ignored national newspaper sources from India and Pakistan for unknown reason which are mentioned in article. Moreoever, Bollywood related website mentioned by nominator are "critics" of Bollywood related stuff, we will not get any Nobel laureate reviewing Bollywood music, we have to look for Bollywood related media for that. Anyway, I will mention some national media already mentioned article Dawn, Pakistan, IBN Live, The CNN-IBN venture, India Today, Tribune India, India Times, The Indian express, The Times of India. Moreover also [BBC Music]. Also this song is nearly having 10 million views on youtube in less than one month. Also article is getting more than 500 views daily. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete(or perhaps redirect if the situation calls for it): There is virtually no grounds for keeping this up to be frank. Policy makers were pretty nice to use the word "non-trivial" when they made the notability policy on songs. I took the sources given by human3015 and saw that all of them are just trivial mentions. Even the youtube hits have not gone into double figures as we can see (hovering at 9 mil something atm). compared to Shiela which has almost 40 mil on official and above 14 mil on all other versions, this is almost nothing. Anyway, redirect if someone really , really wants this to stay up as a page but delete as per nom if you want to follow policy to the letter. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete ALL I see are talks of Katrina Kaif in the video, not even a description of the video itself, let alone the song. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 07:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan related deletion discussions.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment This afd nomination is a mockery of AFD as those who vote oppose really had rift with Human3015.... FreeatlastChitchat had regular editing dispute with Human3015. If an article has notability, the deleting administrator won't delete the article in-spite of large number of delete votes. And Human3015 should develop the article, instead of going for ANI in battleground mentality. Aero Slicer 11:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now Does not meet GNG or NSONG. Has not charted or won awards. Coverage is trivial mentions at best. Case of perhaps WP:TOOSOON, when film is released more coverage could potentially be given but sources currently don't support keeping the article. Potential to merge some of the content into the main film article's soundtrack section. Youtube views or views of any kind are not a criteria of notability. In any case, why would it be a surprise that an article of a soon to be released film which gets over 7,000 views a day, would lead to the song article getting over 500 views when there are at least four links from the film article to it? Cowlibob ( talk) 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Cowlibob: : There is no official char system for Bollywood songs. You can see songs in Category:Songs with music by Pritam Chakraborty and can say how many of them are "charted". Still you can see this this BBC Asian chart. I said this article was in development, I was going to update everything. And newly created songs don't get any award, we have to wait for 1 year for that, still song got major recognition form national media. On BBC Asian chart it is on 12th number in Asia, what else notability you want. See that chart again. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  14:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ IndianBio: As I'm not well-versed in how charts relate to Indian films, I shall ask an editor who has worked on both Bollywood and music articles. IndianBio, would the above charting in the BBC Asian Download Chart and Radio Mirchi's top 20 help the song to meet WP:NSONG? I do note that charting is only a "may be notable" criteria according to NSONG. I also still mention the option of merging some of this content back into the film article. Cowlibob ( talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Cowlibob: Thanks for calling expert. Actually charting is not done for Bollywood songs, only charting is of Radio chartings, and Radio Mirchi is one of leading FM Radio in Metros of India. In above discussion nominator was defending song Sheila ki jawani which itself do not mention any charts or awards. "Sheila ki Jawani" is notable, same way "Afghan Jalebi" is notable. In UK, chart culture is famous so BBC makes charts for Asian songs too. In India, charts are only famous on Radio.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If you wish you can AfD "Shiela" but don't give OSE excuses in any AfD. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I think both are parts of WikiProject Song. And no, I will not AfD Sheila because I'm here to build Wikipedia.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:Notability.-- Musa  Talk  07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Which clause? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete/redirect per WP:TOOSOON. The youtube views are just 3.9 million and the creator mentioned 9 million views with no reliable reference. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 01:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Umais Bin Sajjad: Song is currently having 11 million views YouTube in just one month. And What "TOOSOON" you are talking about? Song is already released, even film is released now, song got charted on BBC. This song is first collaboration of Pakistani singer Asrar with Bollywood. Moreover this article itself is getting 700 daily views [1]. I don't think that it is case of deletion in any way. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  06:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Human3015:, can you please point me to the part of the Notability policy that says Article Views are counted? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Rsrikanth05: You are yet to provide your rationale for deletion.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  11:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Now you are just going crazy here. I gave my rationale with my original !vote, and if you are unable to understand it, I cannot help you out there. Countering my legitimate question with a nonsense question is not going to help you out at all. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Rsrikanth05: Please cool down and do not make personal attacks. Your rationale was not policy based. Cheers. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Then I'm afraid you have not understood the policies. Only one of the 19 sources talk about the song per se. One is a translation of lyrics, one is the YT video, 7 of them are about Katrina Kaif's looks. How are they even relevant? Two are for chart positions. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

We usually read sources "selectively" and we usually ignore things that we don't like. Sources do talk about Pakistani Singer Asrar, "witty" lyrics, also criticised lyrics, about composer Pritam and of course about Katrina Kaif. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  12:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Phantom (2015 film). Song fails WP:NSONG and as that guideline says a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. The article is a classic example of content and source padding, it expands what can be said in three sentences into 20 and adds sources willy-nilly (for example the sentence in the current lede "As of 30 August 2015, song got over 11 million views on YouTube in 30 days." has six sources appended to it, all of which dated and accessed prior to that date.) Abecedare ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - At first it appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON but significant coverage ( WP:INDAFD; see here) in reliable should not be ignored which follows the general notability guidelines and ultimately makes it notable. Further, it meets the notability criteria WP:NSONG after being ranked by several independent media and tv/radio networks. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

*Delete - (via WP:DELSORTPAK) Fails WP:NMG and WP:PLOT. Critical reviews, no nominations or awards even after months. You cannot establish the notability of music by it "Youtube views". Given the population of India, "A few million views" are something common. Faizan ( talk) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I think I should better keep out of here. Faizan ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The claim by the nominator of "no charting" is false. It is currently number 16 in this BBC chart (down from 12). Perhaps the nominator does not regard the BBC is as notable organisation - he/she keeps deleting the citation from the article. [2] [3] [4] [5]-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1: About Chart of this site says “The Official Asian Download Chart is compiled by the Official Charts Company from UK sales data measured across a 7 day period from panel of more than 25 digital retailers”. Just like Youtube hit counts and page view stats, online download stat is no gauges of notability. Also, as mentioned earlier, WP:CHART doesn’t list this BBC site, and neither other BBC sites, as notable. In case the Chart doesn't appear on our guideline page, I am open to consider the chart's notability being established here. Please also note, out notability page says, "This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts." (emphasis added). If these sites are not even deemed suitable for inclusion in article, they naturally cannot be used to establish notability. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

This is your opinion. I do not share it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Fine! This AfD has seen editors before too who don't understand guidelines. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Toddy1:The opinion mentioned here which you said was Your Opinion is not HIS opinion. It is the opinion of Wikipedia consensus where mutual consensus between a lot of editors has deemed this kind of internet chart a poor source, rather a source so poor that they do not even mention it. Therefore just saying that it is a matter of opinion is not going to cut it. In order for this kind of chart to be used in this article you will have to provide rationale, as you are the one going against consensus. Also you don't seem to realize the different between BBC charts and BBC as an organization. The BBC is good enough for what it does, i.e report news, but it's chart has been deemed unworthy of mention due the reasons cited above by Dharma. Please be kind enough to list your reasons as to why this chart should be used when it has been ignored and deemed unworthy by a consensus of other editors. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per Abecedare. Fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Notes and comments by Human3015:

• Note: Article has all reliable sources, same articles on songs featuring Katrina Kaif exists like Sheila Ki Jawani. Article is getting more then 500 views daily, I think that is not fraud. [6] . -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  06:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Read WP:OSE. If you really are comparing this song with Sheila or Munni, then this one fails badly on notability. And if we started keeping porn on wiki, we would get more views. But that's not the criteria for notability. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

So do you think that this song is porn?-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If that's what you understood, this AfD is gonna be tough for you. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ User:Human3015 he meant that your argument about page views is null and void because if wikipedia ran by page views then a person posting a pornographic video (porn=nude people having sex btw) will be able to contest its deletion simply by saying "ZOMG it has been viewed 100000 times by pervs". As this is not happening on wikipedia, we do not go by pageviews. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I had several rifts in past with nominator and persons voting "delete" here. So closure should keep that in mind. Wikipedia is not democracy, decisions are made on the basis of Policies, not on the basis of number of votes. Here no one has provided any valid rationale for deletion. There are clear cut reliable sources are present and song is highly notable. Thank you. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If you are gonna assume bad faith on my part it would be better if you come up with evidences. Also, there is no need to assume bad faith on unknown admin who would close this AfD 7 days hence. The fact that you misunderstood what I said above could be interpreted that you don't even understand what "rational reasons" are. All here are talking about a guideline that has/had been linked for you several times. You have twice blindly reverted notability tag I placed on the article yesterday. I doubt you have competence to understand that essay anyways. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 08:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: After nominated for AfD I have added more reliable sources to article and also charting of the song on BBC. [7]. Gone up by 14 places to 12th from last week's position. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Now this song is peaked at number 1 on Radio Mirchi Top 20 Songs which is India's one of most prestigious Radio charting. It is also declared as Song Of The Week.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, WP:CHART doesn't mention any of the Indian charts as notable. So you will have to also establish the notability of this chart if that's what you are basing the song's notability on. I tried to find out, but their website says nothing on how the charts are prepared, how listing is done, what factors are considered and such. There is no transparency it seems. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe you are expecting that Indian Hindi/Urdu songs should chart on Billboard Hot 100. Anyway, what rationale you have for BBC Asian Chart on which this song listed?-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  04:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The said "chart" needs to be notable before giving notability to others lol. A source must be valid before it can be considered reliable. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

None of the charts Human3015 is mentioning are listed in WP:CHART and the natural because none of the Indian charts have such notability. So if you claim a certainc hart PQR is notable, you have to establish its notability. The onus is on you to prove notability. Only counter questioning all editors here isn't helping the AfD in anyway. It only adds junk and spam to archives. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Obviously it is not compulsory on me to answer every unnecessary question.-- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  06:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't raise unnecessary fake claims of notability and no one will bother talking with you. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ok, cool down. There is "no answer" that will satisfy you people, reason we all know. So there is no use of replying to your comments here, I'm off for you people, I will only reply to any other new user if commented. Don't want to waste time of both of us. Still you people trying your best to get this article deleted and I think you people will win. Thank you. -- Human3015 ^{Send WikiLove}  06:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I've fully protected the page in its current state while this AfD continues as it has been subject to numerous reversions, which is not helpful to the discussion. The protected version is not an endorsement of that version of the article, nor shouold any inference be drawn on whether I think it should stay or not; I have no opinion on the matter. Please make sure you have a look through the history. Ged UK  12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• merge any relevant content not already covered into the film, which may be "nothing" and so potentially delete. insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources to merit a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Coverage by Indian express, Times of India etc. is enough more me and WP:GNG (two multiple realiable sources). Not convinced by the delete arguments. Solomon 7968 10:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• The reliable sources, are not talking about the song but Katrina Kaif's looks in the song. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 07:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - That there's apparently some controversy about the song's music video doesn't negate the fact that said controversy has been covered by reliable sources, as documented in the article. Notability is not the same thing as moral approval or disapproval. As well, the song has charting success that's notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

What controversy? And it hasn't been on any chart. But forget it. You guys don't wanna listen. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Some Users are giving too much importance to this song, turning this into a battle of egos. They have not learned anything after blocks. 112.79.35.14 ( talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

sensible IP spotted. -- Demon3015 ^TALK  15:23, 6 September 2015 (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.