Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Was wir sind

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. Tone 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was wir sind[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: WP:NSONG. Reaching rank 15 in the Austrian top 75 is not sufficient to make this single notable. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:NSONG - "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" - so reaching number 15 in the Austrian charts would most certainly lend credence to its notability. I'm not going to side either way in this discussion though, I suspect there may be some Austrian sources but my German isnt what it used to be. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing long standing notability criteria wording without any talk page discussion and then nominating an article on the redefining criteria seconds later is bizarre. I find this nomination disruptive. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assumed it is clear that having a song somewhere in a top-75 or top-100 chart doesn't make it automatically significant, and wanted to clarify this. As presently phrased taking this rule literally would lead to absurd results. If it reached position 74 our of 75 in some chart would it also be notable in your view? How about a song reaching place 98 in some local radio station top-100 chart? In my view that a song ranking 15 out of 75 and with no coverage by reliable secondary sources is totally insignificant. And of course needless to say my attempt to clarify the rule and this nomination were both done in good faith. Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are changed by consensus, so your attempt to arbitrarily change this one was wrong. The criteria say "national or significant" charts, so one only on the outer reaches of a local radio chart would probably not be notable, no. Also, did you check for suitable third party coverage for this song before bringing it here? Like I said above, there's probably some Austrian sources, did you check Austrian music press? Austrian newspapers? Things like that? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I checked and found no coverage from reliable sources in English. I don't speak German so that's the best I could do. Do you seriously think that we need an independent article about each song that was ever listed in the Austrian top-75 charts? Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently it was a top 40 chart, see Austria Top 40. This article is for a song charting at 15 so the question is moot. I found plenty of sources but unsure of quality due to them not being in Eniglish. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably by SNOW I have sometimes thought the song guidelines a little over-broad, but they are well-accepted here, so this is not the way to change them. As for various national charts, the basic principle is that the enWP covers everything in the world equally, not just English speaking countries predominantly, except to the extent it inevitably reflects the interests of the contributors. The"English" part of the name means it is written in English. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of active editors from German speaking countries contribute to it--and similarly from all other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect [refactored after swinging from delete to keep previously] - there is still only one source, and this might not be enough to satisfy the significant coverage requirement; however there is more to the source than just a statement of its chart position as the German appears to describe both the song and the reaction to it in detail. However, merger seems the best way forward for now --Jubilee ♫clipman 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added a reference to verify its chart placing. The reference is in German, anyone who can translate will probably find more information to put in the article, but the chart placing can be easily seen whatever language you speak. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simply being listed in a chart does not constitute "Significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV, which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail". Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:N 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.' The problem I have with your comments is that they are not the rationale that you nominated the article with. Why are you switching rationale? That smacked of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a person of good faith would accept the rationale was invalid and move on. Google finds 20 Million hits for this articles name. Obvious most are not about the song, but the onus is on the nominator to check them, see WP:BEFORE. In this case you seems to have failed to do a reasonable job in that at least one has been uncovered already. How long did it take you to check through the 20 million hits? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Google finds 20,000,000 hit for this particular combination of words which happen to translate as "What we are". I'd image that that phrase is fairly common in German. 634,000,000 for "What we are" what ever that proves. The onus now is for all of us here to check the hits. I have and I only found one, that being a WP:BADCHART. Someone else managed to find one other ref to a better chart. That's it so far. SIGCOV is all we have to go on. Any word on your "plenty of sources"?

BTW, I am fully aware that the nom wishes to rewite the rule book: he, I and several others are presently scrutinising the notability guidelines for music following this nomination. That said, this particular song has to stand or fall on its own merits or demerits according to the present guidelines, which are somewhat fudged on the matter as you point out elsewhere. The nom has raised genuine concerns regarding the guidelines.

On the other hand, changing the rules then noming according to those changed rules is not the way to go. I suggest the way to proceed is to ask the nom to withdraw this nomination, sort out the guidelines between us all and come back if the song still seems to fall short of WPs requirements after that --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The guildelines at WP:NSONGS only say that a song is probably notable if it has ranked on a national chart, this is something that is often overlooked. It still needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG and I've tried looking, but I can't find anything to help keep this article. --JD554 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:N which WP:GNG is the first part actual contradicts that assertion. 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.' It's not ideal that two policies should have seeming contradiction but I think at least it would be wise to be aware of it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Probably" does not equal "definately". Which is probably why were are here --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jubileeclipman is correct, and the first part of WP:NSONGS also says: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That doesn't appear to be the case here. --JD554 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm happy with the 'probably' wording and understand that it gives editors leeway to apply common sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ the reference for the chart placing to Nadine Beiler and redirect. We simply don't have enough information here to make a stand-alone article worthwhile.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newly added coverage may be enough for a keep - sources are unfamiliar (unsurprisingly) but it looks like there may be enough there.--Michig (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - After some thought, my final word on this is to keep the article, and that speedily. Keep: there are now several sources for this article. Speedily: the nomination was based on a sole editor's (=the nom's) personal reworking of the guidelines. Furthermore, most of the above discussion re the guidelines, while helpful in other respects, is not especially relevent here: the article stands or falls on its own merits. In this case it stands --Jubilee ♫clipman 09:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found an online posted image from a newspaper. [1], it seems more will be available in the Austrian press. If anyone has access to Austrian press archives in the April-May 2007 period then adding sources would be welcome. The performance in the final of Dancing with the Stars also should have courage it's a major TV show and the final especially so, sadly the official sites link of the event is now dead. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I still think this song is not significant enough to warrant an independent article, the recent addition of quality sources improves the article greatly to the level we expect from Wikipedia, so the nomination was not in vain after all. I invite you all to the talk at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) to discuss my proposal to clarify the music notability guideline. Marokwitz (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - True, it isn't significant enough, we should merge it with Nadine the singer. Whenaxis (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2010 (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.