Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyaar ki Pungi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. GNG has been reasonably demonstrated to have been met, and there aren't any arguments as to why GNG should not apply in this instance. A more generic discussion regarding the handling of the topic area is taking place. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pyaar ki Pungi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG for seperate article, Merge to Agent Vinod (2012 film). CptViraj (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj  (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj  (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable song claiming no notability. Fails WP:NSONG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dharmadhyaksha Please explain why you are voting for delete when this can be redirected as a valid search term. As per the WP:NSONG Note #1 -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dharmadhyaksha still waiting to hear back on this.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By that logic all the songs of the world, English or non-English, are valid search terms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note 1 of WP:NSONG states
 * So I note that in spite of pointing this out, you have insisted to !vote delete on the article of a song that reliable media have called hit/superhit/chartbuster. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some superb masterpieces of "reliable media" that has been presented is using very vague words. And such vague words from at least one of the so called reliable media can be presented for so many songs. So what stops from creating redirects is just the mention of the song in some editorial piece somewhere. Such criteria might not seem lenient for western music wherein films dont have songs; but its absolutely rubbish to apply for Hindi film songs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep For several reasons. It passes the criteria #1 and #3 of WP:NSONG. Criteria #1 is passed as it was reported by Wall Street Journal as  topping the music charts in India in March 2012. NDTV, India today and Scroll have called this song a Superhit, viral hit and hit respectively. criteria #3 of WP:NSONG was met when Dinesh Lal Yadav released his viral re-enactment of the song in 2019. see NDTV   As noted by Northamerica1000 in old Afd (and I agree) that this meets WP:GNG per:, , , . -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping other participants of the AfD1. User:Northamerica1000 and User:Secret of success.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal ref says ""Pyaar Ki Pungi" is gaining popularity in India and has been topping the charts." NSONG requires it be "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". We dont know what charts WSJ is talking about and hence we dont know if they satisfy the #1-NSONG criteria. Also, NSONG says "(Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Emphasis is not mine, but original in the guideline.
 * The so called "superhit", "viral hit" and "hit" by NDTV, India Today and Scroll are passing mentions in articles which are about other songs/albums.
 * Re-enactment by Yadav is not same as "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups". This re-enactment is more like a TikTok video and not re-released recording which is expected by NSONG.
 * The other 4 references you are giving: two refs of HT are not returning anything. The other two from TOI and Yahoo are about the Single Event controversies which some XYZ claimed in news to be plagiarism and did not further pursue any legal course of action on it. Speaks very much about the possibly raised plagiarism claim just for publicity.
 * Apart from all this; NSONG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only 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 isnt happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We will have to accept when a reliable source publishes that a song is topping the charts. You can go and dig which specific charts, but the fact that it does is enough.
 * The very fact that they are using a superlative qualifier such as a superhit song, makes it pass our WP:GNG criteria.
 * The re-enactment video can be considered as a re-release of the song. The fact that it went viral, makes it notable for addition into the article.
 * those HT links are from AfD1, they can be checked at web archives.
 * The subject is a hit song. it is notable and can be reasonably expanded. Remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No! Our guideline redirects to a detailed WP:CHART. If you can provide reference that WSJ's usage of word "chart" has similar or equivalent meaning then maybe we can consider it on facevalue. WP:CHART gives a huge list of websites that roam around as "chart" but are not considered as notable enough. We dont know what WSJ is talking about. You will have to do the digging to prove notability.
 * Passing mentions are still passing mentions. GNG requires significant coverage; not one or half liners.
 * Can be considered? Why? DJ Doll's "Kanta Laga", Harry Anand's "Chadti Jawani", Shankar-Ehsan-Loy's "Ae Watan", Chirantan Bhatt's "Har Kisi Ko", etc. are the independent releases by notable artists that NSONG expects. Lip-syncing on the original song on Tiktok is not whats expected here. Some video becoming viral in itself is not a notability standard thats expected as viral is a vague term and clickbaits can make anything seem viral.
 * Can be or can't be. Lets not assume notability on non-verifiable sources.
 * But AfD is for establishing notability; which is not happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have said all I had to say. Let's agree to disagree. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The HT link discussed above can be found here

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On 14 March 2012, Hindustan Times reported that the song was and was en route to the top of all the charts. . India today reported the song as a chartbuster. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering how in-depth the editorial works is (the article has 3 sentences and one of it is a quote), the usage of "trending like hot cakes", "making its way atop all charts", "turned out to be a chartbuster", etc is WP:WEASEL. Now of course WP:WEASEL does not apply to off-wiki; but again as stated above, in case of WSJ, please let us know what these charts are. §§Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dharmadhyaksha. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per below !votes.
 * see Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am convinced by the arguments of about standalone notability of this song, as a derivative of winning popular/acclaimed awards. This's a keep from me.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment In continuation of my Keep !vote above, I would note that Bollywoodlife reported this song among the top 5 songs sung by Mika Singh, which makes the song a major work of a notable artist. It called Pyar ki Pungi as the "craziest song" of Mika's career, "which struck a chord with the masses. The song also passes WP:GNG as it has been significantly covered in articles devoted to it,  and legal case. Hindustan Times also covered the song in 2 separate articles.  -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Bollywoodlife, Bollyspice, Movietalkies are not WP:RS as has been discussed in various PRs/GAs/FAs.
 * The WSJ article you provided now is the same one that you provided above. So i have already argued about this WSJ article above. Btw, why is the WSJ url "blogs.wsj.com" and not just "www.wsj.com" like in this Hollywood film review of Gemini Man. Is the blog section not controlled by editorial team? That would make it non-RS.
 * The Indianexpress article is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is an interview of the actress seen in the song and claiming the song to be wow and what-not.
 * The two articles published by HindutanTimes have been presented by you earlier. One of them has 3 full sentences of which one is quote. The second article of HT is about the song's release and describes in words what the song looks in the video. This is not criticism or review of the song. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please share the diffs of pages you are talking about. There has been no discussion on RSN about them.
 * I have no reason to believe it is not reliable.
 * I had presented the articles earlier, that does not make it any less reliable or its coverage trivial. It is unfortunate to see that you feel that a full article of five paragraphs at covering the song in Hindustan Times one of the most widely distributed newspaper of India is trivialized as a trivial coverage. IMHO HT article meets WP:SIGCOV. Anyway you have said what u had to say and we clearly disagree.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whom are you trying to fool by calling it "FIVE PARAGRAPHS"? Its 9 sentences, 193 words.


 * Update I would invoke WP:HEYMANN now to keep the article. The article has now been improved by me and expanded 2 times of the size when it was nominated for deletion. I have added sources proving WP:GNG and added articles from major newspapers in India discussing its chart position as evidence that this is indeed a notable song.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The expansion of the article is irrelevant. Just like how HT has not standards and can break 200 words in 5 paragraphs, Wikipedia can do the same. I can stoop lower and expand your 700+ article to 1400+ even just for the sake of stuffing prose. What you really really need to see is how much of your content is really encyclopedic and not just filler. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A subset of the sources presented above were apparently good enough to close the Articles for deletion/Pyaar ki Pungi as keep, but here you are applying your unrealistic standards with a complete disregard of WP:BIAS in the Indian context. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have any policy that stops articles from getting renominated. Also, please explain to me how you claim i am biased in here. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Before baselessly accusing me and crying foul, please click the link WP:BIAS and read it. Some further piece of advice on WP:AFDIND also. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Buzz me when you actually have anything different to say about the topic. Till then lets save our time and efforts. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not buzz you. (2) you can unwatch the AfD if it disturbs you. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition to the reliable source presented above for claiming keep due to WP:SIGCOV, here are some more sources discussing the song from BBC, Zee News , Dainik Jagran , Hindustan Times , filmibeat.com  , Firstpost , Telegraph India , Bollywood Hungama , The Times of India , Dainik Bhaskar -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * At this point you're just trying to bludgeon the discussion, DBX. TryKid (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The song in question doesn't seem notable. As the others commented, it fails WP:NSONG. KingofGangsters (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note For folks who are not aware, Superhit is the word used in India for Blockbuster. Here are more sources that are significantly covering the song and call it superhit, chartbuster. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge. The lot of information in the article is about the song is "hit" which can be covered in two or three sentences. The copyright section is pointless. The production section has a long quote from Pritam and the whole section can be trimmed to few sentences. Other technical information is already covered in the article Agent Vinod. So I suggest trim, merge and redirect. A delete would be OK too after moving the content.-Nizil (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Pyaar ki Pungi. . Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nizil thanks for sharing your opinion and pinging me. You may feel something to be pointless, but that does not mean it does not contribute towards notability or significant coverage. If reliable media considers it important enough to publish full page article on the topic, Wikipedia too should include this in the song article. The Plagiarism controversy of the song and subsequent court proceedings were widely covered in all the major reliable media, (some examples presented above) One more that I missed to add above is here. I have objections to deleting or redirecting a notable Blockbuster song that has been covered by reliable media in significant detail i.e. WP:SIGCOV. Talks of merger are secondary to Notability question. Regarding the primary question of notability, why do you think that these reliable sources I presented above does not show the article passing GNG ? At the very least please clarify why these articles          covering the song in detail fail WP:SIGCOV ?  -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if we consider that it has significant coverage, from WP:NOPAGE: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic... there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. and from WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only 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. I have proposed the trimmed version of the whole article (stub size). Is there any significant/useful info left out in it? Add it. Do not add info already covered in Agent Vinod like lyricist, musician and other technical info. The song plagiarism issue is already covered in Agent Vinod (2012 film). So there will be no need of it after merger. -Nizil (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to your query on my talkpage, I believe that song is a borderline case of notability. There are large number of links/sources about the song but depth of coverage is not that good. A paragraph is enough to cover information about the song. And if it is in film article than a lot of sentences on singers etc would be already covered in soundtrack section. So I proposed better merge it with film article.-Nizil (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (Responding to ping by Nizil on talk) Thanks for agreeing that the song is notable (even if you think it is barely). Once the notability question is answered with a yes, it is quite easy to decide if the article needs to be merged or should be kept standalone. Regarding your quote above from WP:NOPAGE, the premise is mainly based on the context. Do you need to know about the film's plot or the story to understand this item song's plot ? Answer is No. A user does not need to read the film article if his only intention is to read and learn more about this song. No context is getting lost if the content of the song is presented in sufficient and necessary detail on its separate article. Regarding your second quote from WP:NSONG There is already enough material from reliable sources that the article has been expanded five times by me from a stub to a C class. I have already thought of a DYK for this song that will be nominated once the AfD tag is removed. So the assertion that "there is not enough material to warrant an article and hence article should be merged" has been proved to be false. Regarding the trimmed summary, I have replied on the talk page that it is not a good summary. You can add it into the main article but that does not mean the song article can be redirected. The topic is notable in its own right based on the sources and chart rankings and has enough material to merit its own article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to discuss the recent significant changes to the page
 * Merge per nominator - material added is mostly trivial and only reinforces non-notability. Note MOS:POPCULT indicates that WP:TERTIARY sources are preferable. Song has no significance other than in the context of the film, AFAICS all the secondary WP:RS added to the article discuss the song in the context of the film, all but two of the WP:RS date from the release of the film.  No awards.  No significant coverage of the song at later dates.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Goldsztajn, I have presented several sources above that were published after the release, those sources covered the reception of the song. FYI an article was published just 2 days back in 2019, in a reliable media, and it is covering this song in a section and stating that "the song had gained cult status overtime". So that should give an idea how off the mark you are. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Good god what happened to this AFD!? Easy keep for WP:GNG based on the sources and the WP:HEY upgrade. Obviously notable based on reviews, sales, and the copyright dispute. FOARP (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to the film article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I agree with Goldsztajn's point that most sources are discussing the song in the film's context. Dee  03  11:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * May I request you to kindly elaborate which criteria of WP:PAGEDECIDE are you using to reach a conclusion to merge. There are some sources that are discussing in the context of the movie but FYI there also these sources           where the subject of the article is the Song, and they are enough in number to merit a separate article. Please check these sources at the very least. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that is where you and I disagree. I had checked these sources a few days ago but forgot to !vote at that time. Most of these sources discuss the plagiarism case, while others talk about the song in the context of the film. Then there are a few sources like bollyspice and glamgold whose reliability is dubious at best. BTW, I am not voting delete; there is clearly some useful information about the song that can be presented in the film's article. The point mentioned in PAGEDECIDE that is applicable here is: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. I am also in agreement with the "Merge" suggestion on the article talk page. Dee  03  14:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dee03, Thanks for elaborating. The plagiarism case is not about the film or film plot, the issue and subsequent court case is about the song itself. The sources covering the court case are considered as WP:SIGCOV. I have already linked few other sources in my last comment which talk in detail about the song, its video, music etc etc, i.e. all the artefacts related to this song. All these sources give exclusive coverage to the song thereby imparting it notability via WP:SIGCOV.
 * You have further argued in favour of merge using the Criteria 1 of WP:PAGEDECIDE i.e. about context. You are quoting lines from the guideline without stating if it really applies and why. I consider this justification of context, inappropriate for some very strong reasons. This song is an  item number  (song). The plot of the item number (both its lyrics and song video) is completely disjoint from the plot of the film. The only overlap being both song and the film feature the main protagonist Saif Ali Khan. I have seen the movie and the song, and I can tell you that the viewer of the song does not need to read about the film or know its plot to get a greater understanding of whatever is happening in the song video. Hence the quoted text is not applicable to our case of this song. This reasoning for "context" might have held true had this been a normal song from a movie but being an item number song this is clearly an exception to it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what that plagiarism case is about. The song does not become notable just because there was a plagiarism case filed against its makers. I have already explained, based on my editorial judgment, if PAGEDECIDE "really applies and why". Additionally, I take objection to some of the wording in the article, such as "Republic World reported that the song had gained cult status with the passage of time", when in reality the RW source only says "The movie performed moderately well but the songs of the movie gained cult status over time." I can see 12 songs on the soundtrack of the film. SYNTH concerns and usage of unreliable sources to spuriously swell up the article prose do not help your case. Dee  03  20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy coverage : Your claims are akin to stating that even if the reliable sources widely covered the court case, in separate article, completely dedicated to the court case of the song, the song did not become notable. Q. Did the court case about the song, get widely reported in the reliable media, or not? It did, and whether you like it or not, the controversy it created, was widely covered and hence it contributed to the notability of the song. Our job as AfD contributors, is to judge if there is enough independent coverage of the song or not, per WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of the court case controversy on the song, is still a coverage of an aspect of the song. Many banned books, songs and films become notable per WP:GNG simply because of it getting banned by the government. Because the act of banning generates coverage for the song and hence it passes our WP:GNG criteria. These extensive and detailed coverages from Wall Street Journal, Zee News, Hindustan Times, Firstpost, and Telegraph of the song controversy are significant coverages and they cannot be ignored simply stating that "they are extensively covering an aspect of the song" and not the song.
 * Song coverage : The reliable sources are not just giving extensive coverage to the controversy, but the song as well. The song and its contents, are discussed in detail in these articles linked at, BollySpice, Hindustan Times, Zee News, BBC, Dainik Jagran, Telegraph, Glamgold. Even if you doubt the reliability of bollyspice and glamgold, there are enough detailed coverages of the song from other highly reliable sources such as Hindustan Times, Zee News, BBC, Dainik Jagaran and Telegraph. It is unfortunate to see, that one is ignoring the mere existence of these detailed coverages of the song, in independent reliable media that is adding to the WP:GNG criteria being met.
 * Cult status of the song : Regarding your last line, about "Republic World reported that the song had gained cult status with the passage of time". As you noted in your quote from the source this is what the source actually said. Is it reasonable to delete the article covering a "cult song" simply because its movie performed moderately?There is no requirement, for the film to do well, or become a blockbuster, for the song to become a cult song. A song can very well, become a cult song, in-spite of the movie becoming a super flop, and not even meriting its own film article. There are several songs in India, that are very popular, but the movie tanked and flopped badly. I can give examples, but it is unnecessary here and you get the idea anyway. What really matters here is that " . Whether the movie did well or if the actor got kudos or not is completely immaterial as far as the popularity (and hence the notability) of the song is concerned.
 * I respect your opinion but the justification you have given for reaching this opinion is fallacious and I had to point this out. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you cease with this bludgeoning? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a worthwhile reply to my comment or an analysis of source I presented? There is no need to comment if you do not have anything constructive to add to this discussion.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat myself: The source says "the songs of the movie gained cult status over time"; there are 12 songs on the film's soundtrack. And you are defending your incorrect synthesis of source material by saying "this is what the source actually said." I brought up the unreliable sources concern only because I find two paragraphs in Production section cited solely to one such source. There are further issues in the Charts section in which there are vague claims that the song had topped "all charts", but which charts are these claims referring to? There is tangential information about a Fatboy Slim video in the Video section. Once we get past all the problematic stuff, the relevant content that we will be left with can be trimmed down to one concise paragraph. This is exactly the kind of scenario in which one is expected to make an editorial judgement on whether the topic is suitable for a standalone article or better presented as part of a larger article. Also, my opinion does not become "fallacious" for rightly pointing out your errors. Dee  03  16:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please notice that the section header of the Republic article you are referring to is titled as "Pungi" which is also the most popular song of the film and the subject of this AfD discussion. " Pyaar Ki Pungi " and " Pungi " refer to the same song. Regarding charts, it was reported by Wall Street Journal as topping the music charts in India in March 2012. NDTV, India today and Scroll have called this song a Superhit, viral hit and hit respectively.. Are you claiming that these reliable sources are lying about the song topping the charts in India ? On what basis are you claiming that this song did not top the charts as being reported by multiple reliable sources ? I can understand that one expects more detail info on the specifics of chart, but one cannot refuse to accept the reliable sources simply referring to the lack of details. I will not comment on rest of your statement since we are discussing the notability here and discussions related to worthiness of a few lines are better suited for the talk page of the article and not AfD. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How does it matter what the section heading of the article was? What matters is what the source material explicitly states. And what it explicitly states does not match the current wording in the article. I don't think this is the "most popular song of the film"; I believe it is Raabta. You keep talking about how this song topped the charts. Can you tell me which charts you are referring to? Vague statements like it topped "all charts" are should be removed immediately. Dee  03  17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but note that FWIW the source explicitly mentioned Pungi song in the section header talking about the cult status of the songs. It is not me or my WP:OR but these , reliable sources that are claiming that Pungi song is topping the charts.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article about the film based on my reading of both the articles, the sources presented and the analysis of these sources in this discussion. I do wish to thank DBigXray for the hard work in searching for the sources and I think the content can be preserved in the article about the film. I will write a longer justification soon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Explanation of my !vote
 * Information about charts is vague/not reliable - This is one of the problems in India since there is no chart like Billboard. The sources which claim that the song topped charts are not really specifying which chart. For example
 * Report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime) claims it has "been topping the charts", but then links to http://www.livehindiradio.com/make-way-for-pyaar-ki-pungi/ as the source of their information which is not accessible and not sure how reliable.
 * Scroll article covers the song in 1 sentence where it says "In 2012, another hit song Pyar Ki Pungi...", bit doesn't elaborate. The term hit song also seems to be used informally here.
 * India today covers in 1 sentence saying "Incidentally, it was only a few days back that the Internet was abuzz with comparisons between the viral hit 'Pyaar Ki Pungi' from Saif Ali Khan's Agent Vinod and Iranian band Barobax's hit 'Soosan Khanoom'.". The term viral hit is not standard and has been used to describe many videos.
 * NDTV article says that a video by 2 Bhojpuri film actors dancing to this song went viral. This is a human interest story, not about the song's charting. While the article does describe the song in 1 sentence as "Agent Vinod's superhit song", it is a description and not an indication of charting.
 * Something which is cult status would be described as such by multiple sources and there will usually be significant reviews. In this case, I cannot find anything other than the Republic link which is a Buzzfeed style lisicle. There is not much information other than "The movie performed moderately well but the songs of the movie gained cult status over time." This is also confusing as it refers to the movie and "songs of the movie", instead of the particular song (for which I don't see any mention other than the section header).
 * Sources are majorly covering the song in context of the film/soundtrack or plagiarism controversy. Most sources are short announcements and don't really emphasise why the song is independently notable of the movie.
 * The somewhat substantial articles about the song deal largely with the plagiarism controversy. Report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime), Zee News, Telegraph. However the controversy is relevant to both the song and the film it is part of. This is best mentioned in a single combined article.
 * Some coverage refers to the soundtrack of the movie a whole. For example BBC is a very good source, but is a review of the entire movie album (I might add, that often it is the movie soundtrack albums which are notable)
 * Some of the coverage is likely based on promotional brochures/press releases which extensively quote the people involved. For example, this Hindi Dainik Jagran article is most likely from one of the wire agencies as it largely quotes the people behind the song. The exact same article was reprinted in ZeeNews (and also in Bhaskar). I wouldn't really consider these as independent news reports.
 * Some coverage is about the release, but are quite short. For example this Hindustan Times article called "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi" is actually just 2 sentences long.
 * Some sites are unreliable/seem to have no editorial oversight Glamgold seems to be reproducing the press release or closely paraphrasing it based on this.
 * Article content
 * Currently, content about the plagiarism is duplicated at the film articles and this song article. These can be unified.
 * Some of the content about the charts is vague. Some of the quotes can also be reduced a bit. Considering the size of both articles, it would be useful to merge into the film article.
 * Overall, I believe a merge works best here. It preserves all the content and yet keeps it from being fragmented. Readers who read the film article are also informed about the song and the controversy (and vice versa). Off topic, this is one of the longest AFDs I have ever read. I think everyone on this AFD has made efforts to find and analyse sources and I really appreciate everyone's hard work.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * DL, Thanks a lot for taking time and coming out with a detailed reply. I would register my disagreement with you on several points. (1) Regarding chart, Is there a reason for not trusting the WSJ article that this was topping the charts, the page it linked might be dead but the information does not become outdated. As for as WP:V goes, The WSJ stating it is good enough for verifiability on chart status. I hope you would agree that the reliable sources do not use the terms such as viral hits, superhits for non notable songs. (2) These articles are of varying lengths. What matters here is that these articles exclusively cover the song and its aspects in detail, and that makes it pass WP:SIGCOV. Regarding Glamgold article, if a blog mirrors a site, it does not devalue the article. (3) If the article is notable it can even remain a stub. The article content should be discussed on article talk and not AfD.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * About (1), this is one of the problems with recent journalism. The report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime) cited http://www.livehindiradio.com/make-way-for-pyaar-ki-pungi/ as the source of their information. I did find an archived copy of it  which says  If the WSJ report relied on this word salad in an unreliable source, I don't see why we should trust it. Journalists can make mistakes occasionally; I believe in analysing the source critically. In my opinion, the WSJ report does not satisfy WP:V for citing the song's performance in charts.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When Wikipedia cites reliable sources, we trust the reliable sources and their editorial standards. Although the WSJ article linked that site, WSJ article no where stated that it is basing the fact that "the song was topping the chart" only on one site that they linked. So it is wrong to claim that they did so. IMHO responsible newspapers use multiple sources to verify and confirm their content before publishing it. In any case this was a blatant strawman arguement where you tried to nitpick WSJ. FYI On 14 March 2012, Hindustan Times (HT) reported that the song was "trending like hot cakes online" and was en route to the top of all the charts. The success of the song was credited by HT to its "comic cheeky and catchy tone". India today reported the song as a chartbuster. . So clearly there are other reliable and major newspapers in India that are also publishing that this song has been topping the chart, Any reason why you are specifically singling out WSJ and not these 2 papers who are saying it ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Update I came to know that this song was nominated for 2 major awards in India. I have updated the article now. This is another major facet of the song that was not brought up before. 2013 Zee Cine Award for Best Song and 2013 14th IIFA Awards for IIFA Award for Best Male Playback Singer The song Raabta from the same movie also has an article with nomination. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked the nominations, but I am not really convinced, particularly as one of them is more about the singer than the song. I believe Raabta deserves an article by itself because the song has been in 2 films and multiple versions of it have been produced. That adds to notability and makes it harder to have a single target for merge. Pungi on the other hand could be mentioned in the article about the film.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is nit picking on your part. The singer was nominated for this song. Getting nominated for the best song is also significant achievement in the Indian film industry. Two major questions are of notability and enough content for a standalone article. Both of them are met here, as I elaborated in my response to Dee.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree here. In my opinion, the content can actually be trimmed. A lot of the content in the charts section is not really required. For example, the fact that a Bhojpuri singer had a viral video about the song is not exactly something I would expected to read in an encyclopedia article 10 years from now. The sources are more P3 gossip kind of news or listicles, instead of proper song reviews. A source claiming that a song is cult hit without any explanation and then giving it only a single sentence of coverage; I guess I don't prefer to use sources like that. The "Production" section also contains long quotes by Pritam sourced to bollywood gopssip sites of questionable reliability. The copyright issue is duplicated is the movie article as well. Editorially, a merge might be better here.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that you are using a lot of strawman argument above, on the sources. I disagree with what you said above but yes, let's agree to disagree. This sub thread is for the awards nomination let's focus on that. As you know there are no Billboards charts in India. What we do know is that these 2 awards are major and notable and are selected for the entire year. IMHO being in the Nomination for the Best song award means that the song was in the top 5 songs released for the entire year, this sounds like a good example of a song topping chart (not just a week but a year.) Hence IMHO, this also merits a KEEP per WP:Nsongs criteria #1. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a straw man at all. I was addressing specifically the "enough content for a standalone article" part as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. My point is that if we trim some of the non essential information, this can very well be merged. I am not disputing the award nomination, but I am saying it doesn't convince me to specifically keep it as a standalone article. An award nonination/win is presumed to be a good indicator of notability because usually such songs are reviewed in detail by critics and receive quite a bit of dedicated coverage. This is an exceptional case where a song nominated for Best Song at Zee Cine has hardly any dedicated review/coverage except the copyright controversy.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bollywood (Hindi Film Industry) released 1,602 films in the year 2012, Assuming an average of 5 songs per film, gives the total number of sample space of 8000 songs, of which 5 were nominated for the best song award at the 2013 Zee Cine Award and another 14th IIFA Awards for IIFA Award for Best Male Playback Singer for the Pungi Song. But here you are doing all sorts of nit picking and strawmans to claim that this blockbuster song should be merged. All stats and logic be dammned ? For reasons unknown to me you fail to appreciate this achievement of the song, it appears to me as if you believe that no Hindi film song should have its own separate page even if the song has been shown to be highly popular/superhit/blockbuster/award nominee, you are proposing to merge it with the film article and IMHO this is not appropriate. The discovery of this facet of award nomination has already convinced 2 editors (WBG changed to keep and 4meter4 voted to Keep). So I am glad that there is still hope for Wikipedia.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Clearly passes WP:NSONG, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. The award nominations and copyvio stories convince me that this subject deserves an article seperate from the film.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Week Keep with optional Merge: Compelling arguments on both sides and a tough one. Comments by the nom and User:Goldsztajn, as well as others, that the majority of sources relate the song in context with the film, are valid for merging. Otr500 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: I have a suggestion: There needs to be a gathering of the minds at WP:NSong and a discussion revolving around notability issue criterion for foreign songs on the English Wikipedia. Reading all the nit-picking gives me a headache. IF we are going to continue to promote merging foreign content here then there needs to be some basic understanding and agreement so there is far less battling. The article uses acronyms that need to be changed on first instance of use, and severe trimming to get rid of the bloat, but those are editing issues. The Wall Street Journal is a major publication and although more about the plagiarism/copyright of the song, shortcut to fame and attention or not, it revolves around the song but there really needs to be more. Otr500 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Otr500, You are welcome to join the discussion that I had already started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.