Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finglas (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   no consensus/keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finglas (song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod, non notable single by a Big Brother housemate who doesn't have an article on wikipedia, charted in top 10 in Irish charts but has not won any awards or received any nominations for the single and is also likely that the stub it is now will never get expanded. BigDunc 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  BigDunc  16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is coverage of the song in the Sunday Tribune . Undecided for now if there's enough to pass WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow  Talk 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have got coverage at the time but more for his appearance on Big Brother and not for the song on it's own merits. BigDunc  17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, other than the one source I found above, I'm struggling to find enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, so I'm now leaning towards Delete.  Gongshow  Talk 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NSONG asserts "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts are probably notable". As a top 10 hit on the Irish national chart, this is not a minor hit. The same policy says that stub articles don't necessarily warrant inclusion, but this is (albeit barely) more than a stub. Note: per nom - although the artist does not have an article, WP:MUSICBIO #2 makes it clear he is notable enough to have one. I42 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I42 is utterly correct. It may well be that the way to go here is to move the article for the song to an article for the artist; the article on the song is a bit more than a stub, but not that much more, and that is, I think, a good enough reason for a merge. Given that the article at present obviously meets WP:SONG, I want to ask the nominator to reconsider and possibly withdraw. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A wikiproject IMO holds no weight it is WP:NSONG that I am basing my delete vote on. Including 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. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. BigDunc  17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Media coverage and chart success does not seem to warrant a delete. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  04:06, 21 November 2009 (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.