Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Bulldog


 * 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 redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

44 Bulldog

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. XXL magazine only mentions the song was one of their favorites of the week, while Times of India only mentions the video and cites lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to the album, Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon - Coverage from album reviews should be condensed and incorporated in the Music and lyrics section of the album article. It does not contribute to the song meeting notability standards per WP:NSONG.--NØ 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect: lack of independent sources and it was not a massive hit; I regret reviewing this properly in the first place. --K. Peake 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW close as the charts give it independent notability. This is another nomination that depends on downplaying significance. If XXL is putting it on a list of best songs, that is not a "mention." Times of India doesn't "only mention the video and cite lyrics of the song". If they talk about the lyrics, that is not a passing mention. That's WP:SIGCOV. "Was not a massive hit" is a tautological claim and extremely based in subjectivity that would be WP:ORG to determine. This was a top 40 hit on the actual charts of both the US and Canadian Hot 100 (the prime f---ing charts of those countries), which gives it independent notability. In his nomination for vulnerable, Excuse that, my apologies, I forgot it was a different user's nomination because it used a similar rationale to this one. Mario tried to downplay that track's chart performances by stating three of the four chart positions of countries were "unofficial" because they weren't top 100 charts, which is blatant BS. He doesn't even have that excuse to do that here. He has tried to downplay the significance in charts even in Afds that aren't about song articles, such as in List of Taylor Swift live performances: "Back then you only make it with having a record deal, nowadays you can reach to the top spot of a chart with no record deal." Charting without a record deal changes absolutely nothing. Billboard has decrease how much streaming plays a role in their chart methodology, with radio and actual sales more prominent and thus less depend on simple streams of Youtube videos and Spotify. He then admits in that same nomination "Not everyone will make it, it is impossible but artist like the ones I referenced sticked out like a sore thumb and to some extend they made it, due to timing, music, memes and other stuff." He pretty much debunked his own claims in the next sentence, admitting his survivorship bias anecdotes of sudden success stories like Mackelmore, 69 and Lil Nas X were "sore thumbs" that didn't reflect that success of 99% of acts who do the same thing. All this stuff about charts and certifications not being that important is based in feelings and anecdotes rather than actual facts and empirical evidence, and we need a guideline or a essay page stating claims like what MarioSouldTruthFan is saying in nonsense. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable)". They don't talk anout the lyrics, they cite the lyrics, they don't say anything about that...you would know if you actually saw the source, which you didn't. I didn't nomiante that article to be delited, not sure why do you make false claims, once more. First uou took our conversation complety out of context, and secondly it can't be aplied here. No, its based on the guideles on WP:NSongs, which you would know if you actually read it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the false claim. I didn't mean to make one as I thought it was you as you used similar reasoning. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect I am not convinced by the above, long-rambling comment which is basically just an appeal to an SNG (being on the charts?) and ignores WP:NOTINHERITED, and therefore has no basis in policy, as there is no such thing as an automatic pass. I fail to find anything amounting to WP:GNG. Redirect as a plausible search term and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.