Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) (2nd nomination)

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. Rough consensus that there is sufficient coverage of the song itself in suitable sources to show notability to permit a Keep. A merge discussion as mooted for (though not specifically !voted for by any participant) can be started in the usual fashion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It does not meet WP:NSONG. The content can be incorporated into The College Dropout article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → one mention by SPIN is not multiples, the others are in the context of reviews of the album.

2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.

3) "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." → Once more this is not the case.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from Spin, there's some decent coverage outside of album reviews at HotNewHipHop, which was generally deemed a credible source here. I certainly would prefer more non-album reviews, but it's enough to warrant a separate page (even if just barely). On another note, awards (or lack thereof) don't affect song notability; WP:NSONGS says it's a factor that potentially could "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." That's not the same thing as a guarantee. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources is not the same as multplies. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is multiple sources outside of album reviews and artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary. "Multiple" isn't restricted to any specific number, only means higher than just one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SNUGGUMS. And even if there are not enough reviews, the deletion rationale would support a merge, not deletion, so keeping would permit the merge discussion to occur. Rlendog (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said "The content can be incorporated into The College Dropout article." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm really a total outsider to this conversation - I know nor care nothing about Kanye's music - but I am a regular editor of song/album pages and thought I'd offer up my opinion in this discussion. I stumbled here through the disambiguation page for "Never Let Me Down". While I agree that this song doesn't meet some of the criteria (it didn't chart, for example), I think that the accolades section is probably enough to save it - no less than 3 specific articles singling out this song among Kanya's best. The notability requirements only say that there have to be "multiple" articles, and that's ignoring the other ~25 sources used to source this otherwise well-written, reasonably neutral and informative article. My vote is to keep it. 87Fan (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and awards actually ARE NOT part of the notability criteria. This is a common misconception. If anything, those are just potential signs there MIGHT be sufficient coverage (which excludes album reviews) to warrant a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage on the song itself; most of the content is part of articles either reporting about or reviewing the parent album. I don't see any problem in deleting the page and incorporate the key elements in the album's Wiki page. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these pieces (neither of which are album reviews) aren't enough, then what would be? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with SNUGGUMS about the song having enough coverage outside of album reviews. I have some doubts about some of the sources currently used in the article, such as the Prezi one, but there appears to be enough coverage to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the non trivial coverage. Nice work SNUGGUMS. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 12 August 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.