Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move Your Body


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Move Your Body

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is yet one of those articles that yet has great commercial performance, but unfortunatly can't be on Wikipedia. I was looking to see if there was enough background info and critical reviews to satisfy the notability of this article, but I was pretty much out of luck, and when looking for critical reactions about this song in reviews of Europop, I could only find such little responses. I'm hoping someone can add more in-depth info and critically published opinions of this topic that's enough to be here and so I can withdraw this discussion. EditorE (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NSONG. Frankly, I feel that a song which ranked first in France, Italy, Austria, Canada, Denmark and on Eurochart, which peaked at third place in UK, which entered Billboard, which was a top 10 hit in several other countries, which was certified gold and platinum in five different countries has sufficently proofed its notability. The article is decently sourced and not so short as to warrant a merging with the article about the album. Cavarrone 22:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's enough here to be kept. It's clearly significant enough. The deletion rationale seems basically to be focused on WP:GNG, and this is one of many examples that shows how severely limited that guideline is. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NSONG does not outrank WP:GNG. This song has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore it isn't notable by WP standards. Note also that WP:NSONG states:
 * Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
 * That's definitely the case here. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At best you could ask for merging, but asking for deletion such quite long article is very silly, especially as you are quoting NSONG saying "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article" (stress mine). GNG is not a policy, it is just a guideline not less or not more than NSONG. And NSONG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" (this appears to be the case) "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." As I said above, deletion isn't an option. Cavarrone 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to a merge because I feel that such intricate discussion of a single track would be out of place in the album article (I mean, I'm not saying I'm violently opposed to it, I'm just explaining why I voted that way). And GNG is the superior guideline, to which all the subject-specific guidelines must defer. WP:NSONG restates the GNG in its first sentence, and later says "The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" (emphasis mine). The stuff you quote about article length is irrelevant, because we're not putting notability aside – notability is what we're discussing. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot apply the parts of the guideline that you like and ignore the parts you don't like. Cavarrone 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A check of the deletion pages of many songs articles shows that the charting criterion is probably the main one to be cited to establish notability and therefore to keep the pages. These many precedents can't be definitely ignored as there is a broad consensus among Wikipedians on the subject. Deleting this kind of page (a charting single, by a notable artist, from a notable album, and certified in many countries) on the ground of lack of coverage despite charting would create a rule that I consider harmful as it could concern 80% of songs articles that enjoyed commercial success, but for which coverage in magazines is not easy to find. Btw, I think the proper place to find references for these "old" songs (i.e. released more than ten years ago) in not Google, but the various encyclopedias on music. I am assuming this song is of such stature as to have been written about. --Europe22 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be creating a rule, it would be following a rule that has existed for years (WP:Notability). The reason why significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary is explained at WP:WHYN. And I think it goes without saying that "I assume sources exist" isn't a very compelling argument. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Europe22 is correct, I remember tons of songs that were kept on the basis of charting, and I don't remember ANY article about a song with such commercial accomplishments that was deleted at AfD. Can you point one, please? Cavarrone 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting a page of a song that charted in many countries is something that has never been applied (the only exception I remember was a song, which was not released as a single, that barely charted in only one country, at number 74 and for one week, and for which there was nothing to say). For now, the rule is to keep these pages. In addition, the "Move Your Body" page uses reliable sources, as charts, certifications and reviews are properly sourced, and it is long enough to get its own article, which can be considered a proof of the subject's notability. And I said "I assume sources exist" because I already added in the article a reference from my encyclopedia of hits in France, so I can reasonably assume that many similar books (including those in foreign languages, as the song charted worldwide) also refer to this song. --Europe22 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topping multiple charts in multiple countries is practically the definition of a notable song. With the sheer combination of multiple sources it equates to "significant" coverage per WP:GNG.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (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.