Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Polo (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. Wizardman 14:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Marco Polo (song)
There are no references showing notable of this song. There are also no references showing that it'll be on either of the albums that the creator claims it to be on. The article is also written very poorly. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NM as it lacks notability. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator fails WP:NM as specified. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jakisbak (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N per WP:MUSIC and WP:MUSIC.-- S R X  13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability. I'll confine myself to yelling this from a swimming pool.  Mandsford (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom --T-rex 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the article was / is written poorly does not necessarily qualify it for an AfD. However, on the issue of notability, neither record of this name has successfully charted or has a "going for adds" date established by the respective record labels, so Delete without prejudice to future creation.  --Winger84 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE My reason?This is Bow Wow´s official web page and it tells that there will be a song by this name in the future. I agree with Winger84 that bad spelling isn`t a good reason for deletion. ABC101090 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't matter if it'll be a future single,it hasn't charted or anything like that. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment after a lengthy googling, I managed to find this:- It tells that the single is number 6 on a billboard chart. Even if it hasn`t come out in cd form, it can be charted, can`t it?ABC101090 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That is the "Bubbling Under" chart. In other words, it is just outside the official chart, in this case the Billboard Hot 100.  Also, the term "charting," for purposes of notability, refers to airplay (Mediabase, BDS, etc), not the Hot 100, which also includes digital sales. --Winger84 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentYes, but that still doesn't mean it deserves an article. It needs significant media coverage which it hasn't got. Just because it charted doesn't gain notability, it should bt merged to the corresponding album. Jakisbak (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:51, 30 July 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.