Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000nen, Zutto Soba ni Ite...

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000nen, Zutto Soba ni Ite...

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

Does not pass WP:NMG. Please merge or delete. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator". I am rescinding this AfD that I created based on information from User:Cavarrone's Ivote below. The article passes notability requirements and will become a Speedy Keep. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The song appears to pass WP:NSONG for having charted in multiple national sales charts (including a third place on Billboard Japan Hot 100, third on Oricon and first on Taiwanese G-Music Chart). There are obvious language barriers which makes searches very hard, but there is little doubt some coverage exists. At the same time this AfD seems a case of systematic bias, as no one would ever nominate a song ranking third on Billboard US charts for deletion (and even if they would, the discussion would be closed in minutes). I'm going with procedural keep as a song with such a verifiable success should be at least merged and redirected to its parent article (as suggested by the same nominator), but not deleted in any way. Cavarrone 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavarrone: I didn't see where it charted, that is the reason I put this in AfD. Also, it was tagged for notability in the first place. The references seemed to be unintelligible. But if you want to vouch for this then I will withdraw the AfD. I will just attribute this to my inability to determine what the sources were saying. What you are saying matches what this article indicates and I don't see any need to merge - I agree with Keep. Now I have to figure out how to withdraw this AfD. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 15 June 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.