Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Go 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 keep. The YouTube views claim causes the article to fail A9. Sources presented in this discussion establish WP:GNG notability. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  02:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Go Song

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable stub, only 1 source. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete youtube hits aren't notability WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox ; talk 22:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep hilarious song, there are also Czech sources for this.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn't a strong argument. In what conceivable way does this get anywhere near meeting WP:NSONG? Widefox ; talk 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm joking it's actually really terrible. It was covered in Metro, and some Czech news outlets.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:NSONG and has zero secondary sources so also fails WP:GNG. Can you reason your keep based on policy/guideline? Widefox ; talk 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well WP:GNG its not true that it has zero secondary sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SECONDARY. Widefox ; talk 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:PRIMARYNEWS, a news source like is tabloid, devoid of much but a primary source, close to the event - it says the video exists and the secondary parts are WP:NOTGOODSOURCE.  Widefox ; talk 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands or merge into the game article at best - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * keep actually some sources including which includes the quote "Misha is probably the most significant and most discussed personality of Czech and Slovak YouTube.", ,  etc.  Perhaps we should instead have an article about the kid, but we tend to get skittish about BLP articles for kids this young.  Hobit (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Probably" is a clue that that concept fails WP:V, apart from this isn't a news site of the most important celebrities of this week. From NOTNEWS "...enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", this is news right, completely without secondary sources and fails WP:10YT, I'm tagging recentism per that. Widefox ; talk 21:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Erb? It's a song.  A song that has coverage that seems to meet WP:N assuming those are reliable sources (and they seem to be, though they are ones I'm not familiar with).  You are claiming this is "routine news reporting", but I don't see how something this unique (thank god) can be considered routine. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:NSONG 1. and 2. and 3., do you agree? also, see "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough 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 is a WP:PERMASTUB with no artist to merge to, only location would be to the game. Widefox ; talk 08:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, but probably hits "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." So meets WP:SONG. Yeah, I actually think the right answer is to have an article on the singer and to merge that there.  But, as I said, we are so skittish about BLP articles for kids this young, I just don't see that as an option that's likely to work. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if this wasn't WP:NOTNEWS (which it is), then NSONG is clear it should be merged (per above). Even alternatively as a BLP this is BLP1E. There's many youtube videos with more hits, and trends/hashtags on social media. They all fail 10YT. This is WP:RECENTISM par excellence! It doesn't even fit in List of most viewed YouTube videos or List of most disliked YouTube videos . Widefox ; talk 08:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A9. Views are not an assertion of significance. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this has picked up some BLP violating vandalism, so I asked for protection. I agree this also satisfies CSD A9, so can we close soon User:Sandstein. If this location turns into a repeated site for abusing this child, then suggest an early salt. Widefox ; talk 11:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it meets WP:N, which it does, it by definition meets CSD#A9. Sources are, by definition, an assertion of importance. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) Delete and speedy delete votes are inaccurately prejudiced by youtube. 2) in addition to the RS'es Hobit cites above there are other non-English RS mentions, , and a bazillion from blesk.cz. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As it satisfies A9, and as explained above could only be a redirect at most due to WP:NSONG "stub", what's "prejudiced" about following policy? WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox ; talk 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are an assertion of notability. This clearly has reliable sources and arguably meets WP:N.  Therefore it cannot meet CSD#A9 per the wording of A9. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2016 (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.