Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place Your Hands


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Place Your Hands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yes, it passes WP:NSONG as it charted, but I am not seeing any evidence to suggest that this deserves a standalone article. Laun chba  ller  13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong against. Very well known and culturally significant song. Needs expanding, not deletion 82.46.109.233 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - The single has charted which means it may be notable per WP:NSONG #1, but there does not seem to much else to say about the song, so why have a dedicated article? - MrX 14:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NSONG, several sources attest its importance in Reef's career, there are references, but more detailed coverage is likely to be offline. It could certainly benefit from reviews and other coverage that is likely only to be found in late-90s music press, not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Question where is the significant coverage? I'm finding trivial coverage of this, so I'm skeptical as to whether it meets WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. While charts often suggest notability, what actually makes a song notable is when it gets significant coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of its album. Coverage from album reviews doesn't make songs notable, and neither does word from their artists or others affiliated with their creation process. WP:NSONGS also indicates that articles on songs shouldn't be made if they are unlikely to grow beyond stubs, and I don't think there's enough to expand this track. Unless significant reliable third-party coverage can be presented, I'm going with redirect to Glow (Reef album), as it is a plausible search term. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with Colapeninsula's assessment - other coverage certainly exists in offline sources. This is a well-known top 10 single, which has been used for other commercial purposes, and which continues to receive airplay in the UK (I heard it on Radio 2 last week). This source unambiguously indicates that offline sources exist. The song has been described in national press as "huge", "legendary", a "mega-hit"... Do I have access to offline sources? No. Does the above demonstrate that such sources exist? I would have thought so. Moswento talky 15:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the album, either way it shouldn't be at AfD. Clearly has sufficient real world significance. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 13 June 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.