Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jag borde förstås vetat bättre


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jag borde förstås vetat bättre

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete &mdash; The article does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject. "On rare occasions, a recording or album&hellip; merits an article of its own." This is not one of those rare occasions. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) —  Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a !vote. I wouldn't have nominated had I not believed the article worthy of deletion. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, it's not unusual for nominators to make !votes. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - See WP:DISCUSSAFD, point number 9: " Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. "
 * The key phrase here is "&hellip;refrain from repeating&hellip;". Never once have I nominated and then repeated on a "separate bulleted line". I simply choose to bullet my nomination. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  14:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Finn 5 fel! (and likewise for Solsken and En sten vid en sjö i en skog/Tuffa tider (för en drömmare)). --Lambiam 13:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest keep, for now Merge and redirect (see comment on timing of nom below) Actually, appearing in a national chart is evidence of notability (WP:NSONG) though not in itself proof. However, in the absence of other evidence, merge/redirect to Finn 5 fel! sounds the most reasonable solution here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:As the creator of the article, I thought that as a charting single it would be acceptable. With the release of the single the album re-entered the charts and in a review of the album it was called a Spector scented ballad. Mattg82 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being. Whereas I agree with the nominator that there are too many articles that merely say 'song,' 'artist,' and 'chart position,' and little else, I find it hard to assume good faith in this nomination when probably 90% of song articles at Wikipedia are of similar "notability" which are not being nominated, yet this newly created article gets nominated before the proverbial ink is dry. Let's leave the article for the time being, put a notability tag on it and let the creator establish notability, some reviews perhaps? It would be good if the nomination was withdrawn at this stage. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, yes, it was nominated apparently within 3 minutes of the page's being created. It would be kind to withdraw this nomination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 minutes? I knew it was less than 24 hours. Bearing mind you think nomination should be withdrawn, perhaps you'd like to change your text above from Merge redirect for the time being? In respect of comments about !vote above, WP:AFD reads Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote' in response to other comments above... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've expanded it to include Swedish radio chart position and critical review comments, hopefully this helps towards it's notability. Mattg82 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This band in particular has many single track articles, including Solsken, En sten vid en sjö i en skog/Tuffa tider (för en drömmare), Juni, juli, augusti, and an extended play entitled Gyllene Tider EP. To say that this article and these others listed qualify as 'encyclopedic' may infact be a stretch, however I would really only support an articles deletion after three minutes in the case of a WP:SPEEDY.  I also applaud Mattg82 for his composure in relation to this nomination, and his futher improvements to the article during this discussion. Stubbleboy 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep After all the improvements I've made, I now feel confident enough to say that this should now be kept. The song is part of what was a massive album in Sweden, and therefore has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. The song also charted on both the Swedish Singles Chart and Svensktoppen, which is a well know radio chart in Sweden.


 * I will improve the other articles on singles from the album and the album itself over the coming days. Mattg82 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 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.