Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (global collaboration song)

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 no consensus‎. With no further participation, I see no point in further relistings. There is a difference of opinion among experienced editors about the value of the sourcing so I'll have to close this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [1] and this from the UN [2]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same song? [3], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [4], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 May 2024 (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.