Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (Mika Nakashima song)


 * 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. v/r - TP 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear (Mika Nakashima song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable new single. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It charted, it was certified Gold, there's a link to prove it. Mika Nakashima discography is too big to merge it, so a separate article is fully justified. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 *  Delete   Merge to artist page . Per WP:NSONGS, not notable. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", and I see no reason why this one should be an exception. Charting, or being certified gold, aren't sufficient to pass the NSONGS hurdle.  (They do indicate that Nakashima is notable, but not this song.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)  Per WP:NSONGS, the article is unlikely to progress past a stub.  While it may be technically notable for charting, it hasn't been established that it's culturally notable in the way that "Hey Jude" or "Johnny B. Goode" are, and thus unlikely to expand.  It should be merged to the singer's page, as it doesn't appear to be part of an album. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment By deleting you would also prevent browsing through Mika Nakashima's singles with Previous/Next links, so I don't really think you should destroy someone's good work. Moscowconnection (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That raises the question, of course, of whether or not any of Nakashima's other singles are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles. Possibly a discography article is called for, instead?  In any case, WP:EFFORT is one of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me that they are. How can a single that charted in the Top 10 not have several articles somewhere? I know I should quit visiting AfD cause it's just sad. :( Moscowconnection (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a source, this one: 中島美嘉、復帰作「Dear」が井上真央主演映画主題歌に. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an unreasonable AfD at time, but notability has now been established. Perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Macwhiz argued, "Per WP:NSONGS, not notable. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", and I see no reason why this one should be an exception." I think that's an off-the-mark misreading of who to interpret the phrase "most songs." Most songs are non-notable, but most songs are far less notable than this song. There are legions of songs around the world that are released by obscure artists, that sell only hundreds or a few thousand copies, that are never released as singles, do not chart, etc. "Most songs" means most songs in the entire universe of songs, not most songs in the much smaller universe of popular charting songs released as singles by major artists. Macwhiz wrote, "Charting, or being certified gold, aren't sufficient to pass the NSONGS hurdle." However, NSONGS states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts . . . are probably notable" In other words, when a song charts on a national chart, as this song has, there is a presumption of notability. I don't think the presumption of notability can be overcome in this case. Not only did this song chart, it charted in the top ten. Plus, it's apparently by a major artist (five number one albums, plus four more in the top 5). --JamesAM (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that NSONGS says that a song that charts is "probably" notable. It also says "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."  Given that this article has not progressed beyond three prose sentences since this AfD was filed three weeks ago, I submit that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and therefore should be merged. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep notability has been established after AfD was placed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (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.