Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erase (song)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erase (song)[edit]

Erase (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been reading the recently AFD listings for the music related articles, and the guidelines for the songs, and this clearly fails WP:NSONGS. It states that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". In this case, there is practically no notability for the song, being released by a non-notable DJ duo, featuring an non-established singer, no ranking on any national charts listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, and not even being performed live. Creating an article just for the sake of it at present seems like a violation of both WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL, because let's face it, this is not a song by an established singing act like Katy Perry or Rihanna which gets gazillion third party sources. This is just a hagiography created for the sake of it. I say delete it for now. Just wanted to also add that I did try to find sources and even added a few lines, but alas, all I could see was websites copying each other the same content or forking it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me fool IndianBio. I know you are operating as many as 3 other accounts on Wikipedia and stop this fancruft foul thinking.If it's all about charts Pani Da Rang is doing on wiki. Hello you did the same thing for in my city and then you took advantage to enlarge your flop edits on the article to gain more edit counts.Also its a single and I don't have to ask you.Ita not all about priyanka Chopra or India. Its the first single released by the duo chainsmokers and it had already in top 80 on beatport.dont even try to change background.its seems you know your PC very much, this is not a personal blog where you keep on adding PC PC PC .Wake up and smell the coffee.
Also, Priyanka is no less then Katy and Rihanna ,but this is the chainsmokers who are celebrity DJ and have enough fan following in west.so, I think it's necessary to have an article on that.(Pks1142 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
May I remind you Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks? You comment on the content and not on the contributor else you will be reported. You haven't provided any concrete evidence or sources to support your claims that this article can be kept as a standalone aticle. This is not even a single and fails so per WP:NSONGS, the basic guideline for the existence of independent song articles. Next time, please remember to counterpoint your argument by providing sources, not cat-calling names. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are no one to tell me what's wrong and what's right...ok..go to helllPks1142 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you cannot comment on the content in discussion without making personal attacks, I suggest you leave this page. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in the article makes mention of much notability and if there's going to be an independent article for the song the first qualifier would be that the song is notable on its own with multiple third party sources supporting that claim. As it stands, the article may already be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD A9. Holyfield1998 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 08:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The single has just released and had enough notability, since its the debut single by The Chainsmokers so it should be kept.Pks1142 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please jot down here how it passes notability, or rather which points of WP:NSONGS it passes? Other wise its a moot point to call it passes. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just the second single of a new recording artist and has gained popularity on the internet. This is a single, not an album and thus is one of the chronological single by recording artist Priyanka Chopra whop is also a noted actress and model and winner of Miss World. If this song was only by The chainsmokers then yes it may have failed to meet notability as The chainsmokers is not a recognised brand outside of USA, but this single includes Priyanka and thus "notability" is there. most songs mainly gain international recognition only after a music video is released, one has not been released for this song yet and still has gained notability. It fulfils WP:NSONGS criteria.--Stemoc (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the kind of argument I was looking for. Good point Stemoc! —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying the same thing and its not necessary to hold a agenda to delete article everytime as she is also Asia renowned artist and getting limelight in us also.So, I want to say that.But you always hold a workshop to show how brilliant you are.Well this is not attack mind it.also the independent line which you added is no well as everybody know it's a chainsmokers song not Chopra.If it was as important to list then editors must have also added this that the xyz song is not on xyz artist album.Like Nicki minaj recorded Turn me on before her album The pink Friday roman reloaded, it there it was not mentioned as coz it not necessary.well giving explanation.My view is this not attackPks1142 (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned, and even blocked for making personal attacks. And here you go again, calling me deaf and other stuff. I have reported you for continuous violation of WP:NPA. You are not someone who would learn from mistakes I guess and have no capability to take onus of attacking others. Saying "My view this is not attack" does not change the fact that you have time and again made personal attacks and continue to do so in your edit summaries and just now here also. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song has released now is getting heat over internet and Priyanka Chopra itself has notability factor. She is no less than Katy Perry, Rihanna or Lady Gaga. She has bagged not 1 but two titles in Asia
  1. Most famous female superstar in Asia and no. 3 overall
  2. Sexiesst Asian women
I know this has nothing to do with erase, but it's show she has enough notability.So I think it should be kept.Pks1142 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you clearly didn't read WP:NSONGS. The notability of the artist is not in question. You mentioned Lady Gaga--that's a perfect example, because she's obviously notable. And, yet, not every single song that she has released has a Wikipedia article. In fact, as WP:NSONGS says, the vast majority of recorded songs should not have Wikipedia articles. So, please, either tell us how this song meets the guidelines, or cease discussing the matter here. Please note that I personally have no opinion on whether or not the song is notable, and haven't researched the fact. You could be right--maybe this is one of the rare songs that should have its own WP article. But it's up to you to demonstrate through reliable sources that it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Stemoc and Pks. The Chainsmokers are well known in the US and Priyanka Chopra is world wide known. Caden cool 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You probably haven't read the above, but you did not point out how the song is passing WP:NSONGS? Remind you that the notability of Chopra or the existence of The Chainsmokers is not the real question here. A song which hasn't been performed, or has seen major chart actions or even been accompanied by major third party sources or a promotion like music video, likely doesn't have any place here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NSONGS states that if not enough coverage exists, or the song hasn't been certified or charted, it shouldn't have an article. She seems to be popular, but if "In My City", which had moderate coverage, did not chart, I don't expect this song to chart either. We can give her the benefit of the doubt, but later. Also, The Chainsmokers lack commercial performance to date, so nothing tells me this would be different. Finally, the fact that this is "an independent song and would not be present on Chopra's debut album", gives me the impression that this fails notability by all means [unless it manages to chart]. — ṞṈ™ 16:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erase_(song)&oldid=1140153334"