Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)


 * 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. Last few comments established that this single has charted and therefore meets WP:NSONG. Shame too because it would have been cool to put "Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye" in the deletion log :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non notable single; hasn't charted, passing mention only in a couple of sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to My Chemical Romance - Whilst it's NN now, it'll probably lose one of those "n"s when it's released. Redirecting means that it's easy to bring it back when that happens. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  14:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — This single will most likely chart within the next week or so. This entire discussion will be moot before it is closed. Basically this discussion is just a waste of time. – Zntrip 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys until it chart. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Zntrip. WereWolf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys for now. Article currently fails notability criteria for albums. The redirect can easily reversed after the single was released and charted. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Artist is easily notable enough to have their first single in 4 years have its own page. Addug (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question, can any of you !voting keep point to a policy that supports keeping this article? According to WP:NSONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Even if the song charts, is there enough material in reliable sources to flesh out a detailed article? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot argue with the assertion that the article was created prematurely, as it most likely was. However, this single will be officially released next week and more information, including chart positions, will be available. I understand that many editors do not consider this a valid argument as it is not supported by established policy or precedent. However, I appeal to everyone's notion of common sense: this single will most likely meet the requirements for notability within the next week or so; I am not invoking WP:EFFORT or WP:CRYSTAL, I am simply saying that this discussion will most likely be moot before it is closed and that editors should practice some degree of self-restraint when nominating articles, such as this one, which have a high probability of meeting basic article requirements in a reasonable amount of time. – Zntrip 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball, so I'm not able to predict which insufficiently sourced article's subject will become notable in the future. My question remains unanswered--even if the single charts, is there enough material in reliable sources to flesh out a detailed article on it own? According to policy, charting alone is not sufficient. I've looked around, and I sure don't seem much of anything out there now. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some sources already: MTV and KROQ. However you don't need a crystal ball to know that the single will be released on Tuesday: official band site and Amazon.com. All I'm saying is that it is more than a reasonable assumption to say that there will be more sources next week when the single is released. As I have repeatedly said, this discussion is moot if you take that into consideration because this discussion will most likely not be closed by then. – Zntrip 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - per WP:NSONGS, if this song is not notable, it should be merged or redirected to the album article rather than deleted. But if it is scheduled to be released as a single in a few days, it makes sense to withhold judgement until then. Rlendog (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article can be recreated when (if) this single gains notability per WP:SONG. LK (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Might chart" is not a valid rationale for inclusion. Nymf hideliho! 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been officially released worldwide now as a single, and has gained considerable radio airplay. 125.237.240.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep has now charted on both the Billboard Rock Songs and Alternative Songs charts (which will be refreshed Thursday). Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, according to WP:NSONG, charting alone is insufficient. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NSONG:
 * Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources — Yes, I counted at least a dozen articles that refer to this song after searching on Google News.
 * "The musician or ensemble is notable" — Yes, the band has its own article
 * "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable" — Yes
 * "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." — This article is not a stub and, as stated before, there are multiple sources.
 * – Zntrip 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverage for the song exists in multiple reliable sources such that WP:NSONGS is satisfied, in my view. For example, these four articles - - each provide more than trivial information on the song. Given these sources, and probably others if required, an independent article is appropriate at this time. Also, just to follow up on the earlier comments regarding chart info, and as User:Yvesnimmo noted, there is a Billboard link showing the song's debut on two of its charts  which has been incorporated into the article.  Gongshow  Talk 06:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have started "Background" and "Critical reception" sections using the four sources previously mentioned plus two others - .  Gongshow  Talk 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep charted single, decent coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:39, 30 September 2010 (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.