Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Kill the Fun

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. I'm closing this discussion because there is no clear consensus and there has not been any further involvement from other editors, even after being relisted twice. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Kill the Fun

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

Non-notable song from a non-notable album that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no obvious closest article with information about this, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely its position on the charts is sufficient for WP:NSONG; or am I missing something here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC) I misread, it would appear. Redirect given the discussion below; the article title is a valid search term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: From WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. ... Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

Charting does not mean that a song is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89, I am aware of that requirement. The question is, however, what charts qualify? I can find very little guidance on this. a priori the R&B songs chart seems to qualify. Do you have reason to believe that it does not? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Charting only suggests that the song may be notable; however, without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, a standalone article is not warranted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 18 May 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.