Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Things
- 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. Wizardman 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Things[edit]
- Good Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable song, didn't chart and wasn't covered in any reliable sources. Another one of Keri's songs was a contested redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : In 2007, the song was #54 on Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles and Tracks. Europe22 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Still, it's not notable enough for its own page; there's very little to say about it besides that it charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to Rich Boy (album). The name is simple enough to be a viable search term. Even though the WP:MUSIC guideline says a song is probable notable to because of it charting, we're still missing "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't care if it's deleted or not, but if it is, it should be redirected to Good Thing. The title of the page for this song should have been Good Things (song) from the start. If it's kept, this title change should occur.--Hraefen Talk 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) .[reply]
- Delete and recreate with redirect per Hraefen. NN. Comment: The "charted" standard is too loose and needs to be overhauled. When it was developed, it was apparently without due consideration of how many charts there are, and how little they actually mean. J293339 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE:
- General principles
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
- General principles
It was awarded the Badil Al-Awda award, a very important and respectable organization and Award.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film was preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award. and if I am not mistaken it was preserved in the Aljazera archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award, and according to Badil website was shown in many Arab TV stations, that means a copy will be preserved in there archive .
Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.
91.11.143.201 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) With respect[reply]
- I struck out the above comment, which was probably meant to be placed in another afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 12 June 2008 (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.