Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Number One

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. Mifter (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Number One

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

it uses unreliable sources. Alsamrudo (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LazyTown#Songs per WP:SNOW Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Memecruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song's "meme" popularity has been covered by many sources including The Verge while Stefán Karl Stefánsson, the actor playing Robbie Rotten, has acknowledged the existence of the song as a meme. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alsamrudo What makes the sources unreliable? --Snaevar (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Snaevar When I nominated this for deletion, it had YouTube and blog post as sources. However, I fixed some of them, because the article probably won't get deleted. But you have got to admit, the article needs to be re-looked at. It references YouTube way too much. Even reception section uses YouTube's comment section as reviews. Also, Vocativ makes a brief mention. Alsamrudo (User talk:Alsamrudo)

Comment @Alsamrudo - A new reference was added from "Eurovoix"; according to that source, over 10,000 people wanted this song to be featured in Eurovision. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True that using Youtube as an source is unfortunate, but deletions are for subjects that have no merit of being on wikipedia at all. There are other methods for requesting an article to have better sources.--Snaevar (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable sources. The problems you cite (citing Youtube and comments as source, etc.) I agree with and thought should have been removed already. But aside from that, this doesn't warrant deletion, only improvement. It has become quite notable for a meme. κατάστασ η 23:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Katastasi --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt in my mind that this one's notable enough for an article. ONR (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contains plenty of sources. Making memes non-notable is an failed proposal, per Wikipedia:Notability (memes).--Snaevar (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems awfully notable. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 25 February 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.