Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run the World
Appearance
- Run the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never charted so fails WP:NSONGS. Fails WP:GNG too as all sources in the article apart from one are album reviews (coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability) or WP:primary. The best source is this which consists of a single sentence and a audio clip of the song. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note This was discussed at a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run the World (song)). This may have been before songs needing independence of album reviews became a standard. I should also note that I originally redirected it to the album, but that was reverted by Richhoncho and later discussed on the talk page (Talk:Run the World#Redirected) AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment only. Firstly a reading of WP:NSONGS will confirm that it is not only charting songs that are notable. Otherwise we'd have to delete all National Anthems and School songs. I felt that an article that had made it to GA should not be turned into a redirect because one editor decided it was the right thing to do, but should come for a community decision. That is why I reverted. I am happy for the community to decide, so I am not commenting on the success or failure of the nomination although I'd like to see other people comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, that is why I followed it with fails GNG too. I won't argue the redirect again, but it should be noted here that being a Good Article does not confer any special advantages to an article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody has claimed it should have special status because it was a Good Article, only that a community decision should be reappraised by another community decision. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment the refs in the article aren't up to much and there was also a DRV after the first AfD which closed endorse keep, I can't find much on google but I'm still reluctant to vote delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)