Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verithanam


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Verithanam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First off, this article was created by a sockpuppet of Vijay-promoting user Bothiman, who appears to be here to bask in every mundane fart that Vijay squeezes out. On the sockpuppetry basis, this article should have been speedy deleted a while back. However, since many people have substantially edited this article, that's not an option. This article does not currently pass WP:NSONG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep every mundane fart not appreciated. Theres quite a lot of coverage, added sources, this meets WP:NSONG -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you were familiar with the years-long Vijay marketing campaign this editor has been on, you might have more appreciation for the fart comment, but ultimately, I don't care. The only thing your reference additions have demonstrated is that the song's leak has received some passing mentions, not that the song itself is notable. You appear to be hanging a lot on WP:RECENTISM. None of these references speak about the song in any deep way. The crux of these sources say: A song from a Vijay film was leaked online. Vijay sang on the track. A. R. Rahman thinks Vijay did a good job. Since we require significant coverage, i.e. in-depth writing about a subject, the song still fails both the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree it is multiple sources, it isn't trivial coverage (several of the articles it is the topic of the article, in mainstream Indian news sources). as per WP:NSONG This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. In regard as to whether it is unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album - you don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and neither do I. However it isn't WP:TOOSOON because it has been in the multiple non trivial sources. Reviewers of the song wont be able do speak about the song in any deep way until its official release for legal reasons. if it doesnt get further coverage in a few months after its official release and the release of Bigil (film) delete and redirect then. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to disagree, but your argument suggests an overall lack of understanding of fundamental principles like "significant coverage", which, again, requires that the sources speak about the subject in detail, which has not been done here. You've highlighted "published works in all forms", but that's a red herring, as nobody has questioned whether the websites are valid. You also don't seem to have a grasp of what WP:CRYSTAL is about, since you seem to be invoking it to say "we don't know what the future will say about this song, so we should keep it". Your comment about reviewers not being able to talk about it "for legal reasons" is hilarious, considering we're talking about Indian entertainment, a world where one of the biggest companies, T-Series, was started by music pirate, and where countless films like Drishyam and Ghajini were copied from other films. But anyway, that's another faulty argument, because you're using a fabricated legal supposition to explain away the glaring lack of significant coverage. Cute move, but transparent. Redirect or delete if it doesn't get more coverage? That is the complete opposite of how our notability criteria works. Why are you participating in deletion discussions if you don't understand Wikipedia's thresholds for article inclusion? We don't sit around waiting for a subject to become notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm learning how to rescue articles and comments like cute, hilarious, fabricated - and Why are you participating - just escalate conflict IMO. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   16:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very little of what you have said above is relevant to this discussion, so I shan't waste my time by addressing any of it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked a question why am I participating and I gave an answer. refactored. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to delete per above. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   15:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in either the article or its references suggests this comes anywhere near satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources are not substantial coverage by any means. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:NSONG criteria: "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." - "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." - "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." - "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." - the "Announcement" section of the article is pure promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION - complete failure of notability, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2019 (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.