Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Another Night (Icona Pop 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   redirect to This Is... Icona Pop, until such time that the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONG. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No charts, no awards, no covers, and references are not independent of the subject, fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to album This Is... Icona Pop per nom. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * [IP restore] can probably be inferred from IP 112.201.190.86 since this IP editor restored this article after the nom Tbhotch blanked and redirected it, (I use the word blank to indicate no content was copied across) without discussion. Though the IP editor left no comment to explain his/her restore...
 * Mild Keep from myself also, mainly because a move discussion at Talk:Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) is ongoing and I don't think it is helpful. As far as the actual merits Philstar Broadway world Idolator seem to indicate that the song is approaching borderline WP:GNG, no great urgency to delete a song getting this coverage. 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk)
 * I won't go so far as to strike it, but I think your inferred vote for the IP presumes too much. The reverting of the redirect could be procedural (i.e., BRD). Let the IP speak for himself or herself. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow to grow. IIO's links (thank you!) show that this isn't just a vanity article. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? The second link isn't working for me right now, but it appears to be about a DJ remixing the song, like the third link does. And the third link's few sentences introducing an embedded file of the DJ's mix hardly constitutes the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires (i.e., "addresses the topic directly and in detail"). Same with the first link, which literally only mentions that the song exists on the relevant album. By this standard, essentially every song from every album we have an article on could have its own standalone article. Andrewa, could you explain why you think these references are up to GNG standards? In ictu oculi is welcome to answer as well, though I note the "borderline WP:GNG" in that argument. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was just easily accessible English links. A bit more digging found Swedish press coverage Smålandsposten "Men bland sköna nykomlingar finns In the stars och Just another night. ". sv:Smålandsposten is a newspaper founded in 1866, not a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's borderline with respect to both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It's a slightly bizarre situation with the same article both proposed for a move as the primary topic in competition with other songs of the same name at least one of which is uncontroversially notable, and similtaneously proposed for deletion here (which seems to really be a redirect and merge proposal anyway). My conclusion (see the RM) is that both proposals are at the very least premature. One or both may even be a bit pointy, but I frankly don't see the point in stirring that particular pot. Just reject both and move on is my suggestion. If it looked like a vanity article I'd be a lot less tolerant, but it doesn't, and it represents quite a lot of work by an established contributor. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That RM has now closed with the closing admin commenting The clear consensus is that this recent song does not demonstrate notability sufficient for primary topic status, but I note that two experienced editors voted to move this article to the undisambiguated name, so it's only a rough consensus at best. Andrewa (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Icona Pop is a notable group and this song is indeed a single. -- Gourami Watcher  (Questions?) 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So does Lady Gaga, Madonna, Pink and multiple artists. The song is not notable on its own, as notability is not WP:INHERENT. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 19:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to This Is... Icona Pop. No indication that this is a notable single, does not meet WP:NSONG as far as I can tell.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak delete A little bit of coverage in reliable sources, but it is certainly not significant. Adabow (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2014 (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.