Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run the World

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 May 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.