Draft talk:Bitch Lasagna

November 2019 page recreation
For context, this page's history:
 * October 2018 release was deleted for being a poorly created article and for failing notabiility.
 * April 2019 recreation attempt was opposed for being a poorly created article

I am recreating this page because I believe these issues have been addressed. I believe this song's notability has changed since the first few weeks immediately following its release (when the first article failed to demonstrate notability). I believe a standalone article is appropriate because there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. I believe this new page is a sufficiently-sourced article to demonstrate WP:N and WP:NSONG via WP:GNG. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Previous article criticism
An outline of previous issues with the article that led to deletion:

The |27 October 2018 article attempt:
 * "The article is extremely short and largely unsourced"
 * "not enough (or any found as of writing this) third party reliable sources that discuss it in significant detail (fails WP:GNG)"
 * "The song is already mentioned under PewDiePie"
 * Addressed: Expanded article by elaborating on more significant coverage since this AfD discussion. Provided sufficient detail to merit a standalone article by going beyond stub-class depth.

The |6 December 2018 article attempt:
 * "There is no indication of notability per WP:NSONG. The "kotaku" and "variety" references only briefly mention the song and the "dexerto" reference may not a reliable source."
 * Addressed with higher quality sources and by elaborating on more significant coverage of the song since this discussion.

The |8 April 2019 article attempt:
 * Recreation was objected to because "the sources you have cited fail to establish notability"
 * Addressed with higher quality/more sources.

Context from March 2019:
 * Two months after "Bitch Lasagna"'s original deletion, the broader topic "PewDiePie vs T-Series" was created. It was speedy-kept in an AfD in March 2019.

Quality sources
I believe there are sufficient quality sources on this topic, which support an article of sufficient depth, to merit a standalone page (covering relevant material that could not be condensed into a stub). These sources include which are all approved on Wikipedia's list of discussed reliable sources. Other reliable sources included in the context section of this article include:
 * Vox
 * The Atlantic
 * Variety
 * BBC News
 * Rolling Stone
 * CNET
 * The Verge
 * The Washington Post
 * CNBC

—Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources of middling quality
There are some sources of middling quality in this article. I have included the few of them that there are in the article as a start because I believe they are of high enough quality (defended below). That said, I believe the article could benefit from replacing these sources with ones of higher quality.
 * Know Your Meme — there is no consensus on their "confirmed" entries. To the extent that there are 1000s of articles covering online meme-specific content, and in this case the reference is only used to discuss online meme-specific content and that content's inclusion relevantly benefits the overall article, I believe its minimal inclusion is merited. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I welcome discussion of any/all of the above points! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)