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 delete. Its well established that a good article still needs to meet inclusion standards and in this case the demolition of the sourcing has not been refuted,
SpartazHumbug! 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep- the article is listed as a good article, and hasn't hurt anyone for ~6 years. Both of these create a presumption for inclusion, and I haven't seen anything to rebut that presumption. Being a single from a significant artist is also strongly in the article's favor. Passes WP:GNG.
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. In fact it suggests that what we see is what we get (i.e. there are unlikely to be any more good sources out there to demonstrate GNG). How long it has been here is irrelevant, but it has been tagged with a notability and reliable sources tag for nearly two years so I am not the first to question its notability. Can you show a reliable source that gives significant independent coverage of the single (requirement of
WP:GNG)?
Album reviews don't count. I have gone through all the independent sources in the article and not found anything. It fails the
WP:SNG so must rely on GNG.
We don't presumed every significant artists singles are notable. The only argument I can think of to keep is
that the other singles on the record have singles. That is weak at the best of time, but especially as some of those singles should probably be deleted as well.
AIRcorn(talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Neutral, we're just into the realms of what constitutes significant coverage, there are a large number of weak refs leading me to a weak keep.
Szzuk (
talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I've had another look and switch to neutral, the refs are a bit weaker than at first look.
Szzuk (
talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
On third reflection, now a delete.
Szzuk (
talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 13:05, 9 April 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.
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 delete. Its well established that a good article still needs to meet inclusion standards and in this case the demolition of the sourcing has not been refuted,
SpartazHumbug! 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep- the article is listed as a good article, and hasn't hurt anyone for ~6 years. Both of these create a presumption for inclusion, and I haven't seen anything to rebut that presumption. Being a single from a significant artist is also strongly in the article's favor. Passes WP:GNG.
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. In fact it suggests that what we see is what we get (i.e. there are unlikely to be any more good sources out there to demonstrate GNG). How long it has been here is irrelevant, but it has been tagged with a notability and reliable sources tag for nearly two years so I am not the first to question its notability. Can you show a reliable source that gives significant independent coverage of the single (requirement of
WP:GNG)?
Album reviews don't count. I have gone through all the independent sources in the article and not found anything. It fails the
WP:SNG so must rely on GNG.
We don't presumed every significant artists singles are notable. The only argument I can think of to keep is
that the other singles on the record have singles. That is weak at the best of time, but especially as some of those singles should probably be deleted as well.
AIRcorn(talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Neutral, we're just into the realms of what constitutes significant coverage, there are a large number of weak refs leading me to a weak keep.
Szzuk (
talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I've had another look and switch to neutral, the refs are a bit weaker than at first look.
Szzuk (
talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
On third reflection, now a delete.
Szzuk (
talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 13:05, 9 April 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.