Talk:Roxanne (Arizona Zervas song)

No indication of importance?
You deleted this page due to the criterion A9 requiring that the artist is "redlinked" and no indication of importance or significance. There was an indication of importance/significance—it has charted on quite a number of national charts, including those of Canada, the UK and US, which is a criterion of WP:NSONGS. Please undelete the article. The artist would be considered notable if they were to have an article made for them, however A9 requires that there is no assertion of importance for the song when the artist—but there very much was. The charts were listed in plain sight on the article.  Ss  112   13:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Notability (music) is a guideline and not a policy. Also the bit that you are quoting Notability (music) says in part: "1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" See the section in brackets? It could be moved to draft but without an article about the artist, and maybe not even then, is it likely to survive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Ss112 that it should be undeleted. It has already charted in numerous countries so the notability of WP:NSONGS is there. Also just looking at relevant streaming charts, it will even moreso be a song of notability going forward. Of course, at this point people would want to find out (more) about it. I've also already gathered more coverage on the song that I would like to include in the article and that would absolutely warrant the article to further exist. -- Lk95 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the section in parantheses, but I don't feel it warrants mention because the fact that it charted indicates there is sufficient coverage out there for it. I don't know why you are deleting pages that have charted on national charts without any sort of discussion or notification to the creating editor (Lk95). The fact of the matter is you quoted speedy deletion criterion A9, which states "no indication of importance or significance". There was an indication of importance by it appearing on at least a dozen countries' charts now—you are ignoring this point, and you are also ignoring that if it is sent to AfD, editors are not going to ignore this fact and will vote to keep it—this I'm sure of—because its chart history is definitely an indication that it's notable. I'm not meaning to pit admins against each other here, but this was gone about the entire wrong way. AO, please see the article before it was deleted. Anyone can clearly see there is an indication of its notability (there is news coverage and plenty of charts), so can you please restore this article? Then, CambridgeBayWeather, if you still have concerns, nominate it for deletion. That would be the right way to go about it, not this silent deletion with a criterion that doesn't even apply business.  Ss   112   16:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ @ . I don't revert other admins except in very rare situations where I think they made an honest mistake and my reversion is not likely to be controversial (i.e. they will agree) or in situations where I think the tools are being abused. Neither applies here. This belongs at WP:DELREV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly right that admins can outright delete articles for notable topics and then those who disagree have to take it to deletion review when the article should've been put to a discussion for its deletion in the first place. That would be like we're headed down the notorious route of the German Wikipedia. Oh and just to add, it's now debuted in the UK Top 40.  Ss  112   16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what deletion review is for. Admins are strongly discouraged from reverting each other's admin actions except in very unusual situations. But FWIW, I think you have a strong case. @. CSD is supposed to be more or less uncontroversial. I'm not convinced that's the case here and I think if this goes to DELREV there is a very good chance the appeal will be affirmed. Again I would encourage you to reconsider and maybe send this to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's now reached number one in New Zealand: .  Ss  112   23:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with users Ss112 and Lk95. The song meets the guidelines of notability according to  WP:NSONGS and has various articles covering it. Billboard for example, has a good amount of articles covering it and its respective artist. Please undo your deletion of this article. -- DovahDuck 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @CambridgeBayWeather... I'm not going to intervene here but I would gently point out that you have multiple experienced editors stating that this song passes our notability guidelines. This might deserve a second look and reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If a record can reach no. 1 on a national chart and be the feature of a Rolling Stone article and still not be considered notable, I'm not sure what is. Richard3120 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Edited
I just want to know why my edit was reverted AdvisoryOnMixer (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (Not involved but.) It looks to me as if this edit was flagged by the Huggle software as possible vandalism, maybe in part because you are a new user. If you want to make a stronger case for including the factoid about the song being prominent in the gamer community, I would suggest: (1) find a citation to include supporting the statement, and (2) write the contribution in a complete sentence (it is currently poor WP style to begin a sentence with "And" as it was in your edit). If those criteria are met, I see no reason this edit would not be accepted. Hope this helps. Gabrielbodard (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)