Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypest Hype

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypest Hype

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

Non-charting single is not notable; fails WP:NSONG. Dolovis (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is just as notable as the duo's other songs. The reason it did not chart was because it was not eligible for the UK Singles Chart (or the other Official Charts Company charts) due to the fact that it was released as a free download, rather than being released commercially. There's been significant independent coverage of it though and the artist is notable. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no non-trivial coverage despite Mhiji insisting that such exists. If sources exist, prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These for a start:

I don't see why this song should be penalised from having an article because the band gave it away as a free download rather than being released commercially. If it had been released commercially, it would have charted and would thus be notable. ALL of the duos other singles so far (see here) have charted, so it's not unreasonable to say that this one would have done. Chart performance is a good indicator of notability, but it's because of songs like this which are ineligible for charts that we should not solely rely on whether a song has charted or not. It's not reasonable to delete this because it didn't chart because it didn't have a chance to. And if we're just looking at coverage in independent sources, all these have about the same coverage - should they all be deleted too?! Mhiji 01:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. WP:MUSIC states that a single should be on a national or major chart or have won awards to be notable, which the song hasn't. Furthermore, WP:MUSIC goes on to say that "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". There is not enough information about this song to warrant that it have its own article, and it clearly fails the notability guidelines. Epass (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no charts, no covers, no awards = no notability per WP:NSONGS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:59, 9 January 2011 (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.