Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Throwing My Arms Around Paris

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Throwing My Arms Around Paris

Fails WP:NSONGS. Attempt at redirecting to parent article was reverted, so here we are. Hasn't charted, hasn't won any awards, hasn't been covered by multiple artists. Can't meet criteria until Feb 9, so it should be create protected until then. —Kww(talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the editor who reverted the redirect I believe the topic of article meets the general notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator did not consider the general notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly have considered them. In my view, articles need to meet both their subject specific guideline and the general notability guidelines in order to be kept. That's an issue that there isn't consensus on one way or the other (see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, which is why I take articles that only meet one or the other to AFD.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states in the first paragraph: A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. (my highlighting). That to me says that the topic doesn't need to meet both. --JD554 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your reading is dead wrong. It's a bit long, but actually taking the time to read Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, specifically section B, is interesting and educational, and provides examples of many different arguments pro and con. The main problem with your interpretation is that it would allow the Kevin project to write an SNG that said "All people named Kevin are notable", and that would then permit articles on people named Kevin, even if they failed the GNG. Not a good answer, I don't think.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily WP:NSONGS also states: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whew ;-) --JD554 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If an article meets the basic notabiliy guidelines, then it should be kept. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources establish notability without any regard to what specific notability criteria for music. -- Whpq (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't have to chart to be notable, and is already being played and shown on national TV. Coverage (e.g. [1], [2]) is sufficient for an article on a release by a highly notable musician.--Michig (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a single release by a major recording artist. Why on earth would it be deleted? The discography would look pretty daft with a hole in it. What a waste of people#s time flagging this for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (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.