Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid in Love

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. czar ⨹ 01:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid in Love

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

Previous AfD of 20 Rihanna song articles was closed as keep with no prejudice against individual nominations.

Let's take a look at the article. "Background and development" cites credits from album liner notes, and mostly vague interviews with Rihanna and songwriters/producers who worked on the Rated R album. (Note that NSONG's guidelines on coverage in third-party sources "excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.") Among these interviews, there are only two brief statements specifically about the song "Stupid in Love". The third paragraph is about a completely unrelated song and has no business in this article.

Meanwhile, "Composition" and "Critical reception" are based on reviews of the Rated R album, which only mention "Stupid in Love" in passing. NSONG states, "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."

Therefore, editors have not demonstrated the notability of this song, and it should not have an individual article.

This song charted at #7 in South Korea, and while ranking on a national music chart is listed at NSONG as a factor that "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable", "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Per my comment here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The third party info lies in the Background section. It charted very well in South Korea. My sentiment here is the same as what I wrote here just now. This articles attracts on average 645 views per month based on the last three months; see here. — ₳aron 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEak keep Unlike my reasoning in CCL, this song is not that directly related to that assault case. So I'm going with weak keep. I would change it to delete if I see enough strong cases against keeping it. And I agree with the third para unnecessity which Chase has raised in the deletion statement. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed as Keep but Chasewc91 disagreed with my closure and since I was busy converting my entire talkpage to HTML5 I simply didn't have any time to reopen it hence Chase doing it under my full support [1], Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Might I suggest some discussion of sources meeting the general notability guideline or WP:NSONG? @Chasewc91, it's customary to comment within the AfD if you feel another argument doesn't hold water

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 20:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to Czar - Sorry for not checking back here much. Anyway, I feel that Calvin999's arguments were mostly addressed by me in the original nomination while Tomica's (and IndianBio's to an extent, though it reads more like a delete !vote) is rooted in the idea that notability is inherited. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Case Love, where not a single editor !voted delete. I get that you have an SNG which says this isn't notable, but it clearly meets the GNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2014 (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.