Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven (Inna song)

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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Inna song)

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

Article was the subject of an RfC held on its Talk page, in which it was decided to convert the article into a redirect. The primary contributors have ignored the finding of the RfC, restoring (and adding to) the article whenever it is converted to a redirect. Am bringing this here to get resolution to the situtation. The particular issue is whether the song has received independent coverage sufficient to meet the guidance set forth in

WP:NSONGS. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ignored the finding? That RfC closed the same week of the song's release, nearly two months ago. That song wasn't notable enough two months ago to warrant an entire article, but it does now. There are several upon several independent sources regarding the single within the article, to which the challengers have seemed to ignore. There's my two cents. Carbrera (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NSONGS. The article section that discusses the critical response is largely given over to a single review in People Magazine (the Zambian publication, not the U.S. one). That review contains mostly press-release information on the recording and the video, and devotes only three sentences to a discussion of the song itself. Indeed, the article here uses more words to describe what the reviewer said than were used in the review itself. As for the other two sources quoted (Outland and Urban.ro), the brief statements that appear in the article here are essentially the only things that were said by the sources. So, the question is whether these three brief statements satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article. I think they do not. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is much work that has undergone to this article. I found several sources regarding its structure, reception and so on. I think, the article would have been notable even if it wouldn't have charted anywhere, but it actually did. Hitmixes is like pretty much the same length, even shorter, but it is allowed to stand alone there. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The RFC was closed nearly a month ago and the article looked like this, A month later it now looks like this, The article has been significantly improved and sourced since it's creation and since the RFC, Quite frankly I don't see any valid reason for deleting (If the RFC was 2 weeks ago then fine but it was a month ago!). –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 1 August 2016 (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.