Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious (Meg 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 delete. v/r - T P 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious (Meg song)

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

No references does not seem to meet

WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - no evidence of
notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no references to support that statement JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst charting on a recognised chart may lead to notability, charting is specifically not mentioned in
WP:NSONG. The problem with this article is that it needed tagging for not having references (with a notability tag, if the editor thought appropriate). AfD is a pretty heavy resolution when at least 50% of the entries in Category:Stub-Class song articles are less notable and yet half a dozen entries for this artist get listed for AfD.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with your point that new editors should be given a chance to improve their articles but, for example, Freak (Meg song) has been tagged since October 2011 without any improvement. Meg's songs are already listed in her own article, which is probably the best place for them. Sionk (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (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 00:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A chart position is not in itself a reason for keeping. Per
WP:NSONGS, "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage (or any references at all) to demonstrate how the
WP:NSONGS notability guidelines are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (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.