Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls 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, consensus is that the improvements to the the article during the AFD now meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:MUSIC requires individual song article to at least have reached a chart; this song does not and so fails notability criteria - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: AMG search, Billboard.com search. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Previously deleted under afd. -- Taroaldo (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have taken a second look today, and the article in its present state is sufficient for me to change my position to keep. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote WP:CSD's template - "It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." It doesn't meet G4 according to the third part of that. The confirmation of its release is enough for it not to qualify for speedy.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ignore all rules. It's getting radio play at the moment and is almost certain to chart given the previous two were top 10. If we delete this, it'll end up getting recreated very soon.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In retrospect maybe it was slightly early to create this yet, but whatever.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignore all Rules doesn't mean ignore all rules all the time. If that happened we would have anarchy.  -- Taroaldo (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:MUSIC does not say that songs are automatically notable if they chart it says they are "probably notable" (it also doesn't say that songs are automatically not notable if they haven't charted). The guideline says that "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." and "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" - I do not think there is enough material is availale at this time. Guest9999 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable band, reliable sources, and the song has a top 40 chart position at present. I've updated the article and it seems to be relevant. AceLinkOccassional (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; article much improved; looks to have addressed deletion concerns. --Haemo (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand and keep Top 40 hit on a national chart (UK) qualifies for WP:MUSIC. Prose needs fleshing out to make it to stub. Please note WP:2S. B.Wind (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2008 (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.