Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart (Meg 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   delete. v/r - TP 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Heart (Meg song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No references does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC  Jay Jay Talk to me 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per charting top 40 hit.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sionk. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You discount it being a top 30 hit in Japan?--Milowent • hasspoken 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That will not in itself make this single notable. Sionk (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No evidence provided of notability. Chart position is not a reason for keeping per WP:NSONGS - "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per WP:NSONGS, charting alone does not imply sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 5 March 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.