Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha (Kaela Kimura song)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. v/r - TP 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Samantha (Kaela Kimura song)
- Samantha (Kaela Kimura song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence is given of this being a notable single. The only information in here is that it is, in fact, a single. Nothing is provided to show it meets the standards of
WP:RS can be found to prove its notability, it should be deleted and redirected to the album's page. either way (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Redirect. Considering it made #8 on a notable chart, you'd think there'd be more to say but there isn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason for the brevity is that it's a song in a foreign country and foreign language. Redirection would lose the track listing, which is information work keeping. I would not object to a redirect if the information in the article was actually merged so that it is not lost. But is being a stub of an otherwise notable article a good reason to delete it ? TJRC (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason for the brevity is that it's a song in a foreign country and foreign language. Redirection would lose the track listing, which is information work keeping. I would not object to a redirect if the information in the article was actually merged so that it is not lost. But is being a
- Keep. Charted single, reached #8 on the Oricon chart. The IP editor in question redirected several dozen of articles, obviously with no knowledge of their subject matter. Obviously, neither the IP editor nor the nom bothered with ]
- And you didn't bother with WP:ONUS after our redirects. You instead told us the onus was on us, which it is not. either way (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand WP:ONUS. This was not challenged material, which is what that policy is addressing. What parts of the article did you believe were not true? TJRC (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the whole idea of it being notable, for one. If others are coming in and saying "there's nothing here that shows it is notable," you need to prove it is notable with sources, not just revert and say "nope, you're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about." either way (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONUS is about challenged material. Please quote the material you challenged. TJRC (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself is the challenged material. Additionally, the source provided right now is unreliable as it is a wiki. either way (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the whole idea of it being notable, for one. If others are coming in and saying "there's nothing here that shows it is notable," you need to prove it is notable with sources, not just revert and say "nope, you're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about." either way (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand
- And you didn't bother with
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 19:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NSONGS as it charted on Oricon. I have edited it to provide a reliable source for its chart position. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The chart position may give it some notability, but the article (which consists of one sentence of prose after almost a year) is rather pointless. As per WP:Songs, articles shouldn't be created unless there is enough information to make a separate article worthwhile. The song in question is now four years old and it seems there is little interest in expanding this.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:11, 29 September 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.