Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anywhere in the World


 * 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 Keep   Yash  t  101   13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Anywhere in the World

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG Newmanoconnor (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. SplashScreen (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To meet WP:NSONG, the song article need to be more than a stub, and describe at length details about the song and it's effect. Being notable by charting is not enough for a standalone article for a song, without enough material to devote to a single page, it should be deleted or merged to the album. As far as charting goes, it is required to have charted on a national or significant music chart. For Belgium this would be Ultratop 50 singles, not such a low number on UltraTip("Tipparade" ). Or 185 on a French chart.  Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs)


 * Keep or Merge. According to WP:NSONG, Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album, which proves both of the above points. If this article can be improved and expanded to "warrant a reasonably detailed article," keep it, if not, merge it to Mark Ronson and Katy B. In no case should it be outright deleted, since it does meet the basic requirement of WP:NSONG of charting. - Jorgath (talk) (conribs) 17:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. that's really your interpretation of "Charting on a national or significant chart"? It seems like a copy and paste of the policy. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for merge/redirect if it's needed. But the top 50 singles chart for Belgium is the Ultratop, not the Ultratip. Which the way WP: NSONG is written implies to me just as sports or any other criteria, the chart needs to be a top level chart. Not just charting in the top 200 songs of some tiny nation for a week at 183 or 60,etc. I'm not even suggesting it needs to be the EU Hot 100. But at least in the top chart for that nation. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Song is not notable at this time. There are no reliable sources showing it passes WP:GNG currently.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Song is notable because it has charted in Belgium and France, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Charting and WP:NSONG, Wikipedia outlines what charts are considered reliable for this very argument. Simply charting does nor meet WP:N whether it's WP:NSONG, or WP:GNG. They can be found her at WP:CHARTS the SNEP chart for singles only classifies the top 50'as having "charted" though they track to 100. Again Ultratip is not a valid chart, and the sources for some of these scharts is considered unreliable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ultratip is a valid chart, and the sources for some of these charts is considered reliable, and the chart is not inclued on the WP:BADCHARTS. Greenock125 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage for the song in multiple reliable sources, Rolling Stone and ESPN  in particular. I've added them to the article.  Gongshow  Talk 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nom Comment Someone please close this as keep, it's part of a global advertising campaign for Coke, and these two sources change the ball game Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, is that a withdraw? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I withdraw my NOM.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Think we still have to keep it open because User:Ryulong !voted "delete" also. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.