Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Chahe Leela




 * 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. Article does need to be expanded, though. The sources provided should be included. (Non-admin closure)  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ram Chahe Leela

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. PROD contested as the article claims that "the song topped various charts". The provided reference also says so but just in the vague manner without detailing anything. Topping charts, where chart is undefined, is not really a notable thing. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INDAFD: Ram Chahe Leela


 * Keep It appears that WP:GNG is met, which would have this meet WP:NSONG per having "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Perhaps this could be merged to performing artist Priyanka Chopra or composer Sanjay Leela Bhansali or to the film Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela as, at the very least, its coverage would have it be worth a sourced mention at these several targets if not kept. But deletion? I think no.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Not Notable as a separate entry. should be merged with the movie article Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per failure to meet WP:SONG. Reading through this source shows that this song has gained some popularity and maybe even potential that it may become notable in the future, but it's too soon for it to be an independent article. Merge, if anything.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but WP:SONG requires that a song has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," and this one has. So how is you feel it has not met the requirements?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I really appreciate you for bringing fourth those sources and for pointing out my flaws when imposing the rule of WP:SONG. After re-evaluating the policy, and my decisions behind my vote, I am changing it to 'keep'. Again, your response to my vote was appropriate and I thank you very much.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the above debate.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (talk)  @ 18:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NSONG as per    . Babita  arora  05:34, 13 September 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.