Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Day Is a Holiday
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Every Day Is a Holiday
- Every Day Is a Holiday (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)
No evidence this song has been "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts," won a significant award or received significant coverage, thus failing
WP:NSONGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon3378 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
]
- Keep did you look into the citations themselves? Please see Music Times, Marie Claire, and Idolator among others, which all are specifically dedicated to this and give plenty of coverage. Charts and awards (or lack thereof) aren't definitive factors in keeping or deleting. What truly matters is that this received coverage from credible independent sources (not closely affiliated with artist/company) outside of album reviews (though this wasn't part of an album to begin with). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Snuggums' comment. Article is in poor shape, but it appear notable from its coverage from independent sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)]
- Keep - Media coverage alone is enough to warrant it's own article. Easily passes notability. Giacobbe talk 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:NSONG, article has plenty of independent sources that cover the song. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)]
- Keep Plenty of third party coverage, this nomination seems extremely mal-informed and researched. —IB [ Poke ] 05:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.