Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phir Bhi Tumko Chaahunga

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The result was Withdrawn, per this edit by the nominator, and in the absence of any other editors recommending deletion. Note that the article was moved to Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phir Bhi Tumko Chaahunga[edit]

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

Promotional. TrendSPLEND^✉ 08:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What type of sources needed for removing the article deletion template? Thanks. 59.94.25.88 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can either add sources to the article itself or list them. There should be sources that support that this song has received a significant amount of coverage from reliable, third-party sources and that it has been discussed in a greater context than just in film reviews, etc. Since this is an AfD, it is not quite as simple as removing the template. The template will be removed when this discussion reaches a consensus (after other users vote) or if the nominator withdraws the nomination. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it, I had created it after lot of hard work and devoting time, enough coverages are there for this articles in References section, It is Only Informative and not promotional (Anoptimistix (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Do you have any comments on this? It would be more beneficial to explain your reasoning for bring this to AfD beyond a single word. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Delete. It must be surely removed as the whole article is presented as a promotional material. Upon that, the song was released only two days back, how can someone from his own opinion put a super-hit tag on this. Not every song which just becomes a hit, be given a place on Wikipedia. Such pages are only promotional.

TrendSPLEND^✉ 17:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: I think that this could be more of an example of WP:TOOSOON as the film has not been released yet, and the song was only released a few days ago (as you have mentioned). The song may become more notable in the future (by gaining more sustained coverage during the film's release), but right now it seems too soon for an article. Thank you for your response, and I look forward to hearing responses from other users. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Hello, Where are the "hit", "superhit" tags, "promotion", "opinion" things in the article you are talking of? Valid references are given. You are assuming all of it. Specify it please. Is there any guidelines or rules about when (talking about time) to create Wikipedia article/s, as you wrote - "the song was released only two days back", "be given a place on Wikipedia". Thank You. 117.194.4.189 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No justified reason given for deletion, the article have a lot of sources references and even media coverage, just google it, you will find a lot of buzz is surrounding the song, its a popular song and highly notable, AfD was placed only to destroy the article. further when the article was created it was only after 2 days ,but still plenty of sources and coverages were for the subject due to its high notablity. the user who placed AfD only wanted to vandalise the wikipedia. (Anoptimistix (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Anoptimistix: @117.194.4.189: @Aoba47: Firstly, the creation of this article is purely a self-promotion of the film. Even if you want to add any information about the song, just add it to the film's page and there is no need of a separate article. Apart, the article is filled with phrases such as....(there's a long list) -- "soulful rendition", "shedding tears", "soothe the soul", "instant hit", "viral", "historical song", "quantum of love", "Mithoon's genius"...! I think it's enough. The main point here is that, it even didn't win any recognisable award (even single)...In my view, it (this article) only seems to be an outburst of a fan's love. Just for example, each song of Roy was hit, let's make a page for each song (definitely not). TrendSPLEND^✉ 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: All songs of Roy were not hit. Bond Boond and Yaara Re were unnoticed songs.Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga is an instant hit ,verify on YouTube it has 8 Million views ,in such short span of time,it's highly notable ,search about it on Google, and most important each and every phrase has a citation and entire sources are listed in Reference section. And its no way promotional ,as it doesn't need promotion ,its an instant hit ,and wikipages related to songs do not usually gets preference in google searches,because download links,streaming links,and video links often results in searches, it cannot be promoted. But detailed information about the subject can be quickly accessible through the page. So please don't delete it and withdraw your nomination.

@TrendSPLEND: Hi, within double-quotes words / phrases You wrote are views of eminent editors or authors (from sources) - mainly e-papers, mostly under Reception section, and Wikipedia always need sources or citations for all articles. Thanks. 59.97.136.203 (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: Phrases like "soulful rendition", "shedding tears", "soothe the soul", "instant hit", "viral", "historical song", "quantum of love", "Mithoon's genius"... are of the respective authors and people associated with it,Its necessary to describe the subject, and most importantly each and every sentence has a source attached to it. It havent won any award as its a new song ,despite being a new song it becamed popular among masses,and thus its notable, you may not like the song, its your choice. But majority of masses who like Bollywood music ,liked it that's why it has so much coverage and become notable and popular. As time pass it will get more coverage and probably awards too. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – That an article reads promotionally is not typically regarded as a valid reason for deletion because editing and improving the article is usually possible as an alternative to deletion. In this case, most subjective/biased opinions are attributed to the person who made them; perhaps the article could be cleaned up, but I don't think the problem is as bad as the nominator makes it out to be. Instead, the focus should be on determining whether the song has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Such coverage appears to exist, as shown by the sources presented in the article: [1][2][3][4][5]. I'm not 100% sure whether these sources are reliable, as I'm not familiar with Indian media, but absent evidence to the contrary, it does appear this passes the bar for notability. (On the other hand, I do understand Aoba47's suggestion to wait until the film's release to see if there is sustained coverage, so I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Half Girlfriend (film) either.) Mz7 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: Its a kind request to you, please reply with you Wikipedia account...as I am not able to get who is in conversation with different IPs. I give you 2 days time, to improve the article....if you succeed, I will remove the nomination. Otherwise, it should be considered merging with Half Girlfriend (and let's see if it win any award).

TrendSPLEND^✉ 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND: I'm not Anoptimistix, but I've reorganized and cleaned up the article a bit to try to remove subjective promotional content and attribute all opinions about the song to their respective authors. I think, given the sources in the "Reception" section, that the article should be kept as a standalone article. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2017 (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.