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. SoWhy 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phir Wahi (song)[edit]

Phir Wahi (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional stunt by a fan. Has serious issues of impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking. Fails GNG Umair Aj (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Has reliable coverages by Times of India, Hindustan Times, India Today and News 18 passes WP:RS thus it passes basic WP:GNG. Further lots of Reliable coverages provides in-depth coverage about the song which makes it passes WP:NSONG. Further quotes are attributed to their respective authors. This cannot be promotional, it is very well sourced with reliable coverages. If this is promotional than every film which is going to be released in the year 2018 but has an article about it in the year 2017 is also promotional. Article is started according to notability policies and has reliable coverages by reputed news media of India Anoptimistix Let's Talk 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

 Comment: The nominator of this XfD has not notified the author of the page before taking it to AfD. Further it is to be noted that they were blocked for sockpuppeting,they may create multiple accounts for deceiving and to disrupt and influence this discussion. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 17:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating is a basic courtesy we expect of all editors who nominate AfDs, though I do no think it is compulsory per our rules. And the nominator has not been blocked for sockpuppetry. Just putting the facts straight.Jupitus Smart 13:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Hello ! Thanks for joining the discussion, the nominator of the article had some issues with me in past as I reported their acts of deleting contents and references of articles at WP:ANEW and promoting and placing singers images on top of the article at singing. That's why they nominated my created articles for deletion despite have some reliable sources and in-depth coverages required for standalone article, which passes the article for WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:NSONG and about sockpuppetry evidence Please check this. Thanks once again for joining the discussion. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Keep: The sources all seem reliable and pass WP:RS -- the tone of the article does seem to be incredibly promotional, and I would think that it would be better if there was a re-write putting the reviews into proper prose, but that's not a reason to delete an article. Nomader (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2017 (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.