Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hronia Polla

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hronia Polla[edit]

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

One sentence stub article for a song that has not charted and fails WP:NSONGS, so the song should be redirected to the album, To Hrono Stamatao. Aspects (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I redirected the song to the album that was challenged, which is why I started this AfD. Aspects (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As previously mentioned, the song has charted, there is plenty of sourcable information available on it, it just has not been placed in the article yet, although it could easily be expanded. Most singles in Greece do not have a physical release, yet they can still make notable articles, this one does indeed have a physical charting release, making it even more notable than those articles. Needing expansion and not being notable are not the same thing. GreekStar12 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if the article were to be deleted, sources can be found and added, and it will just end up going back up again, so there really is no point. GreekStar12 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no charting information in the article and in fact the song is not even listed in the charting singles section of Sakis Rouvas discography. Aspects (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't delete the article because theoretically more could be added to make it better" and "to delete now only to recreate later with more info is a waste of time" are not really a good rationales for a keep. If you were to add the additional sourced information now then I would support keeping the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as was previously done. In the event that the album article becomes overburdened with discussion of this particular song then we can simply offload the contents back to the song article. At this point though it doesn't seem like there's much to be said about the song; the album's article has just six sentences. Dawnseeker2000 23:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 August 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.