Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monotonía

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monotonía[edit]

[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)

Declined PROD by Dan arndt that I think merits further discussion. His concern was:

Fails WP:NSONG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Noting Twitter is not an acceptable or reliable source. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON.

– Joe (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some fairly high profile sources exist: Billboard, Rolling Stone plus quite a few non-English news articles. Surely these now meet the GNG? JMWt (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The song is already released. Why the discussion of deletion. Krups Music (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, early indications that it's going to WP:CHART very soon, allowing it to pass WP:NSONG. There's also clear WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is almost certain to chart in various countries next week, rendering this AfD redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from the Billboard and Rolling Stone links in the article, there is also coverage in Pitchfork, a separate Billboard article, two Yahoo! articles (1 and 2), CNN Español. There is coverage third third-party sources. Whether or not this is significant coverage should be more of the question, but I am posting this comment to address the concern about the existence of independent coverage at all. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song was just released and has been getting lots of coverage. In the next couple of weeks it will start charting and it's definitely notable. What we should do is work on improving the article by adding more (and better) sources instead of just deleting it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to Weak Keep. There is a review in Pitchfork and a very short one at The New York Times. Some of the news coverage might lean on the routine side and might not be SIGCOV but are mostly independent, and given it's just released there's potentially more reviews coming or that it could chart. Therefore, if more reviews are released or if this charts I'll change to keep. VickKiang (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Aoba. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies the requirements of WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG guidelines. Erick (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2022 (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.