 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability
edit@Adamclemance13: and associated IP socks, please stop restoring this page as this song fails WP:NSONG. To quote NSONG, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", this article currently only has an iTunes source and a news source, primarily fails the project's notability guidelines for songs. Please find more sources if you wish to restore the article, and refrain from edit warring. Hayman30 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: I have restored the redirect. To prevent further disruptive editing, the page has been asked to be semiprotected by Zawl (recently renamed from TheMagnificentist). GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GeoffreyT2000: They appear to have restored the page. Hayman30 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- At current state, the article fails WP:NSONG but a search on Google shows significant and reliable sources, so it just needs work for it to meet the relevant notability guideline. I'm done redirecting it back to the artist article but will try and improve it some time later. Not sure why the IP editors haven't bothered about doing so themselves. — Zawl 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Since the article has been restored again, I have sent it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Deal (song) to determine whether the article should be redirected. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- At current state, the article fails WP:NSONG but a search on Google shows significant and reliable sources, so it just needs work for it to meet the relevant notability guideline. I'm done redirecting it back to the artist article but will try and improve it some time later. Not sure why the IP editors haven't bothered about doing so themselves. — Zawl 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GeoffreyT2000: They appear to have restored the page. Hayman30 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Release history
edit@Adamclemance13: It basically repeats information covered by the infobox, hence is absolutely redundant and unnecessary. Hayman30 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)