Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha Ha (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 speedy delete. My apologies, I deleted this as A9 without seeing there was an active AFD on it as well. However, it's unanimous and clearly fails at least one CSD criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha Ha (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not have any secondary sources. I googled an uncited review that was quoted and only got hits to this article and something called revolvy. I don't think it is a hoax, but seems a little suspicious. Most of the references are to songs on itunes or other sites that apparently share similar artwork (WP:OR). AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: it's not a hoax as such, because the song does exist on YouTube, but it clearly fails WP:NSONG. Not a single one of the references refers to the song itself, they are either references to The Simpsons or to songs by other artists whose single artworks were allegedly "inspired" by this song (with no proof of the allegations). The certifications are all fake: it's easy enough to search for the Austrian and Canadian certifications on the official databases of the certifying bodies, and in any case the certifying levels stated in the article are incorrect... for example, platinum certification in Canada is 40,000 equivalent sales units, and according to Music Canada's website 150 streams equals one sale, which would be equivalent to six million streams, not 10,000 as stated in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you can find a video on YouTube doesn't mean this isn't a hoax. There are a lot of stupid, completely made up things on YouTube (just look at any random LTA case.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - A YouTube song that got some geek notice, but everything else in the article is made up or severely exaggerated. Kudos to Richard3120 for the in-depth research. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The fact that it relies on fans as quotes and reception, and the "commercial" performance is just a heap of underwhelming sums of streams. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mostly relies on sources about other things and not so much coverage of itself. Also, the whole "the single artwork inspired all these others" is clearly a fake claim. Just looks like nothing all around. And the see also pages have nothing to do with the article.  Ss  112   09:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a9/hoax. Not even sure why this is at AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.