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 ref you provided says "Song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Hum from Kabir Singh is in the Top charts since its release and even when the film is nearly out of the cinemas, the song remains Number 1 on all streaming sites." This vague one sentence in the very good editorial masterpiece of 5 sentences is not meeting WP:CHART. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One can dig in for more sources, but what has been found already is enough to convince me to Keep this article per the reasons stated.--DBigXrayᗙ09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not surprised as this is not the first song related AfD wherein you seem to disregard NSONG and CHART very conveniently when probed. Just saying that it passes NSONG doesn't make it happen so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why music plus is not a reliable chart ? Please tell me which Indian chart is reliable, so that I can check out the ranking of this song on that chart. Meanwhile I have found another chart. For two weeks between 6 July to 19 July, the song was listed on the number 3 position in the top 20 songs chart published by Radio Mirchi on its site. Also this song remained on its chart for 17 weeks.[1]--DBigXrayᗙ11:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's practically nothing to write about; Musicplus charts are not acclaimed/significant either. Also, DBigXray has skipped over a clause that explicitly follows criterion 1 of NSONG, that he is taking refuge of:- Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.∯WBGconverse17:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting a Delete here is completely unjustified here as Note 1 of WP:NSONG states Note 1: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
You claim "Musicplus charts are not acclaimed" but refuse to provide any basis for your assertion. Music Plus Charts, has published its criteria which looks quite reasonable to me. The topic of discussion is not Musicplus but the song. Please let us know which charts in India are acclaimed/significant according to you. I am sure that a song that remained on top of charts for 3 months and counting will surely feature in other charts as well. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the current quality of the article may not be great but that does not mean there isn't enough material to write about it. --DBigXrayᗙ06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not recanting my !vote. Go thru some of those sources that you've dumped below. They're mere mentions of the song, even if an entire article has been written about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I have completely read each and every sources I listed below, but after reading your comment, I doubt if you have done so as well. The articles are of varying length covering various aspects, release, reception, review etc of the song but all the articles are covering the song "Tujhe Kitna chahne Lage". Please explain how you reached the conclusion that these articles e.g. [9][10][11][12] from independent reliable sources are trivial ? --DBigXrayᗙ16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In continuation of my Keep vote above, I am shocked to see how a notable hit song that has been widely covered by reliable media is being voted as delete here. There seems to be a huge disconnect in what I am seeing in my searches vs what others are claiming. I disagree that there is "nothing to write about it" as I prove this in the refs below. If that would have been the case then the song would not have been covered as Individual articles in the reliable media. Here are some of the sources that in my opinion clearly show that the song passes the WP:GNG criteria based on the significant coverage. I have produced what RS I have found that covers the release, reception and popularity. Multiple articles covering the song from same publisher are grouped together. DNA India[1]NDTV[2],[3]Zee News[4]Dainik Bhaskar[5]NewsX[6]India TV reported that the song was among the top 10 songs in the World.[7][8]SpotboyE[9]News18[10] Catch News[11] Zoom Times Now[12][13]Scroll.in[14]India Today[15], Aaj Tak[16] The Times of India[17][18][19]Navbharat Times[20], Amar Ujala[21], The Statesman[22], Firstpost[23] --DBigXrayᗙ12:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you shocked that editors are asking for deletion but not shocked at the poor page 3 references you are bringing up? Most of the articles you have dumped here are reporting the release of the song. Such PR stunts are pulled by all films. Then there is second category of the articles that simple put words to what is seen in the music video. Then of course you have presented the masterpiece which claims the song to be most viewed of the YouTube song. Just like how vaguely these refs claim that the song "tops the chart", it goes hyperbolic in making the claim of being the most viewed song as well. User:Winged Blades of Godric rightly said that there is nothing to write about the song. What he meant was there is nothing "encyclopedic" to write about the song. For the sake of writing one may always stoop down the quality levels and also write about all the codes to apply to make this song your caller tune. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring the beating around the bush. Same Q as above. Please explain how you reached the conclusion that these articles e.g. [13][14][15][16] from independent reliable sources are trivial ? --DBigXrayᗙ16:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update I would invoke WP:HEYMANN now to keep the article. The article has now been completely Re-written by me and expanded 8 times of the size when it was nominated for deletion. Folks who believe that there isn't enough content to write the article have been proved wrong. I will continue my expansion and have plans to nominate this for DYK once the AfD is closed. I have added sources proving WP:GNG and added charts from India as evidence that this is indeed a notable song.--DBigXrayᗙ10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for discussion of recent updates to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is taking shape decently, though it does require some cleanup. I don't think notability should be an issue, enough cites...keep. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the film where it can be adequately explained and also provided better context. The main reason is that most sources mention the song either in the context of the film or they are short announcements of the release. What is missing is why this song is independently notable of the film soundtrack. I might follow up with a detailed justification later.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The article's text and sourcing has vastly improved since it was nominated. There seems to be enough text and coverage to warrant a separate article. If others disagree, I suggest they tag the page itself for merger and discuss on the article's talk page instead of having that conversation here at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per 4meter4. I have not been able to look closely but I am going to side with keep at this time because I see the sincerity of an editor to make improvements in accordance to policies and guidelines --- and the length of time on the relist. Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2019 (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.