Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fool 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. Keep all, based on the discussion below, without prejudice to limited, individual renominations. I'd recommend no more than 2-3/day. I note in addition that the existence of multiple GAs in this list appears to violate WP:BUNDLE "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled" I believe this instruction has been violated in this case. j⚛e deckertalk 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fool in Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NSONGS: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject [non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment] of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... 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."

While these songs placed (for the most part, rather lowly) on a few national charts, NSONGS also says, "The following factors [such as appearance on record charts] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria."

Other articles will be added to this AfD shortly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also nominated for the same reasons mentioned above:
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whoever added this rule to WP:NSONGS, it's not right! Neither was discussed or voted, we can not rely only on one or two persons adding a rule so we can then acquire on it! You are wasting labor and time users put in making the articles on the site by deleting it. I suggest keep the song article and others too! — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomica, this rule was an RfC that was extensively debated in spring 2013 and ran for the requisite month. It received nothing but Support votes. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 16, and stop making false claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is ridiculous. All of these songs have charted! Several of them of have received significant coverage and third party coverage!! Charting is only one of the requirements. I agree with Tomica, whoever created these stupid ideas and rules needs a slap with a cold fish. A lot of single releases don't even get single reviews anymore, so we more often than not now have to depend on album reviews for lyrical meaning, genres, composition, style and comparisons, they are fantastic sources of information about songs. And I wholly reject this whole "it chart lowly or poorly" idea; a chart is a chart. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around the Billboard Hot 100. Just because it is number 100 on South Korea, it doesn't make it "less important"; it is still that countries' national music singles chart. It is always nearly exclusively Rihanna articles that gets this treatment, never any of other singers articles which are the same sort of articles as these mentioned above. It is such a waste of not only the editors (myself and Tomica, amongst some others) who have been so many hours on Wikipedia creating these articles for readers to elevate the pressure of bulking out album articles as well as wasting peoples time by drawing their attention to articles which PASS THE CRITERIA SUCCESSFULLY. Me nor any other editors create articles which do not pass in the first place. We don't make articles willy nilly. All of these articles mention passes the criteria and I could care less what the deletion nominator has to say about it. It is jumping on a bandwagon and it is not assuming good faith. People are too quick to nominate articles for deletion because they think it does not pass. If any one has an issue with something, take it up with the editors who contributed on their respective talk pages and talk it out first and come to a conclusion. That is a more civilised way of approaching something and it also doesn't take up other editors valuable time on Wikipedia, which is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia for people to find out information, instead of letting them get on with their own areas of interest on here and improving poorly written articles and articles which are vandalised; they are the articles that need attention, NOT Good Articles which have been passed by other editors. —  ₳aron  16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. I totally agree here with Calvin on his statement written above. I also noted that Rihanna's article always get this kind of treatment while I can find other performers articles which are awfully written or sourced and they are still here and nobody touches them. Note: The user who is AfD-ing all of this articles is a Lady Gaga fan (please check her articles: Aura (song), Swine (song), Gypsy (Lady Gaga song) etc etc etc). Also to the people who are about to come and see this discussion let me inform you that the articles I have written lately are all overwatched by users and AfD (please see this (nominated by SNUGGUMS, the article is in perfect shape), this which is still undergoing, nominated by IndianBio and now we have this. Well, a lot of users have left Wikipedia... sadly with invented rules like this and delete-happy users, not much of the old guard is staying on wiki anymore. Such a pity ! — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would seriously advise all of the above commenters to brush up on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - particularly WAX, WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, and WP:ATTP. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rejecting your advise. Everything we are saying is 100% relevant to the cause. We don't need to brush up on anything related to this. You, however, need to brush up on what song criteria is. You can't have one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for others. You're nominating of these Rihanna articles surely means that you will nominate the Gaga articles mentioned by Tomica, yes? Because they fall into the same categorisations stated in your proposal for deletion above. See what I mean, you are fighting a losing battle and have shot yourself in your foot by doing this, because you have trapped yourself in your own web. The reasoning you have given for deleting these Rihanna articles apply directly to the Gaga articles that you have worked on yourself. Mass deletion of these Rihanna articles will also lead me to consider retirement from Wikipedia too, or at least a boycott or extended hiatus from going anywhere near Rihanna articles, which would be a shame, because it is primarily Tomica and myself who have completely overhauled the entire Rihanna Wikiproject and it's entire scope. One only needs to look at the amount of Rihanna articles which are GA, FA, FL and DYK to see how much work we have done improving the Rihanna scope for readers. —  ₳aron  17:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have barely touched any of the Lady Gaga song articles mentioned here, and I hardly have a bias for keeping her song articles. If you would like to put any non-notable songs of hers at AfD, that's your prerogative, but it's completely unrelated to this discussion. Please keep your comments focused on why the Rihanna articles should be kept and refrain from mentioning unrelated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed Calv. And just to show another discussion where Chase, SNUGGUMS and IndianBio are going against this user who wants to "defend" "Tik Tik Boom" in the wrong way though. An article for that song can exist, only if it's expanded of course. I don't know how he keens to compare the article to the above nominated Rihanna articles which are in far more better condition than the mentioned. Oh, and also that's how Chase got inspired to AfD all the articles... next are other Gaga articles right? ;) We already said why they should be kept and that's more than enough! This AfD is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw while I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years! — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in deleting any articles by any editors. I'm not into tit for tat. I think they enrich the music scope of Wikipedia. I agree, in all my time on Wikipedia, I think this proposal takes the biscuit and is the most thoughtless, insensitive thing I have seen yet. —  ₳aron  17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Several of these are Good Articles and the rest easily meet WP:GNG, before getting to the level of WP:NSONG. Seems a very misguided nomination at best.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of these fail the GNG as they lack "significant coverage" (defined as "address[ing] the topic directly" and "more than a trivial mention") in third party sources - much of the information comes from reviews of the songs' parent albums and other articles related to the parent albums. These are essentially content forks of the parent albums' Wiki articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to realize that even singles get their critical reception section from the album review external articles. Today, newspapers and websites apart of the lead single they rarely do separate reviews of the songs when they are realized. I can't believe that that's pointed as a problem... — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but many notable singles receive independent coverage in reliable sources, all things besides song reviews considered. "We Found Love" is an example of a song with significant coverage - many articles have been written about it outside of the Talk That Talk parent album. The same cannot be said for the nominated songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And isn't "We Found Love" the lead single? Isn't a hit? I can tell you singles pages which contain less information than those songs you nominated above. Please check the reviews of "Talk That Talk" or "Birthday Cake", all of them are from the parent album, why? Cause publications simply doesn't bother re-reviewing songs they were placed in a review of the album. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, we are looking at more than just critic reviews. We are looking at overall information. Plenty of it is available for the songs you just mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also information available for other non-singles nominated above. That's not the thing. Obviously, this AfD is for the sake. 1) Were the reviews, 2) Now the coverage was not enough. What's next? — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As clearly stated at the top of the AfD, the bulk of the information about the nominated songs comes from reviews and articles about their parent albums. Significant coverage of the albums makes the albums notable. Passing/brief mention of the album's tracks in articles about the album do not make the songs pass the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you also AfD "Man Down" for example? All the reviews come from the ALBUM reviews and there are not much other information about the song's creation. Despite having a video and charted, it's the same thing. (I am being ironic ofc!) This AfD or the rule above is a BS! — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * True, "Man Down" was released so long after Loud that it's basically made up of album reviews. Only difference between "Man Down" and the articles being proposed for deletion above is that it was released as a single and had a music video; aside from that, "Man Down" is the same as all those mentioned above. But because it's a single, no one questions it's notability. "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" has a lot of significant coverage, "Skin" has third party coverage because of the Armani Jeans campaign, "Love the Way You Lie Part II" has also received significant media attention because of it's association with the original. "Breakin' Dishes" was a major dance hit in two different years, despite it not being a released as a single. The list goes on. Some of these articles have even more info that "Lovebird (song)", and that was a single. —  ₳aron  19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NSONGS clearly says, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears...". You and Tomica are misinterpreting it to read "If the only reviews of the song exist in reviews of the album". For many of these songs, the only information published about them in sources are from album reviews, which demonstrates the notability of their parent albums, but not the individual songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But they don't just have coverage from albums. They have coverage from other sources, too. Plus, all bar one charted, and that bar one article has a lot of information. I think you're missing the point that there is more info in a lot of these song articles than a lot of single release articles. The whole criteria is majorly flawed and that is why editors are going against it's theory and principle it is meant to stand for because it doesn't work. The old system was better and always will be. —  ₳aron  20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the new guidelines gained consensus over the "old system". AfD is not the appropriate venue for you to rant about your preferences about the way things used to be. Your comments should be directed Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). As of now, NSONG is a guideline approved by community consensus. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to respective parent albums or Delete per WP:NSONGS. Chase is correct in what constitutes a notable song and what doesn't, even if the criteria has changed over time. It should also be noted that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Therefore, not every song will have sufficient coverage to warrant separate articles. Being released/not being released as a single DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY determine notability, and neither do charts regardless of location. What determines notability is whether the song got more than brief mentions outside of album reviews from reliable secondary sources. Music video reviews can be used to establish notability provided there are multiple reliable secondary sources reviewing it and are not just brief descriptions. This applies for all songs regardless of who the singer/group is. Songs can also have significant coverage that are not from reviews at all, but this has not occurred here. With no significant coverage outside of album reviews, songs do not warrant separate articles.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, hello... the person I expected is here. I don't want to repeat myself, the statement above is pure BS. The articles have right notability to be apart articles, independent of their parent album. The reasons? We told 100 reasons they can be separate articles... — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And none of your "100 reasons" are policy- or guideline-based. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And your policy based arguments are too much WP:OWN. Also please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE and for all the good articles you want to erase WP:GA. You're violating a policy so Bye, Bye, Bye (feel free to AfD this article, I really think it lacks sources...). — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OWN and INDISCRIMINATE having nothing to do with this discussion. And good articles are not exempt from the AfD process - they can be delisted at any time, so naturally they can be proposed for deletion as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Charts play an important role, some of these songs above charted in multiple territories and in the top ten in places too. That makes them notable songs, because they sold enough copies purely on the strength of downloads alone to get high chart positions, not that high or low has anything to do with it. A chart is a chart, regardless of the placement of the song. —  ₳aron  20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer back to NSONG which was cited at the top of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * INDISCRIMINATE is an inclusion policy that says we put data in context with independent sources. It has nothing to do at all with this discussion. Why you continue to mention it is beyond my understanding. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", of which there is enough material for all articles. The guidelines are contradictory. First sentence says all forms of media published by sources no related directly to the singer (i.e., not self published) is acceptable, then it says that album reviews are not acceptable, when it just said that all published sources unrelated to the singer is acceptable. See? Flawed. It doesn't work. —  ₳aron  20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You omitted "Notability aside," from the beginning of the quote you selected. Having enough material and a reasonably detailed article does not make the article pass notability guidelines. That quote means that even if a song is notable, it still may not warrant an article if there is a lack of info. There is no contradiction. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is because there isn't a lack of information. —  ₳aron  10:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It applies to a different scenario that is not applicable to any of the nominated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why delete or redirect? Why shouldn't the sourced material be merged (with a redirect)? Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I think I understand where the nominator was coming from, and see this as a misguided but good faith nomination. However, I side with the other keep arguments on this.  G loss  23:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to speedy renomination of individual songs, but at least a few of these are solid as far as GNG is concerned. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is the idea of individual discussions, but it should be noted that passing WP:GNG isn't automatically enough for songs to warrant separate articles. The only things not covered by WP:GNG that are covered by WP:NSONGS (a more specific set of notability criteria) is how it must have enough independent coverage to grow beyond a stub AND have significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews. "No prejudice against individual discussions" is a fair idea for if these are retained.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:01, 8 November 2014
 * Most of these fail the GNG as they have no non-trivial sources devoted completely to them (not the albums they come from). For the others, there may be one brief article or so. Notice how most of these song articles reiterate information that can be trimmed down and included (in a more concise form) at the parent album pages. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They can be trimmed... but they DON'T HAVE TO! Just because two editors don't like having song articles on Wikipedia and invented some stupid policy, doesn't mean we have to delete a bunch of good articles who have enough material to standalone! — Tomíca (T2ME) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What Chase is saying is that these are WP:CFORK's. AFD also is NOT the place to complain about/condescend notability criteria or make snappy remarks.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This AfD should have not existed in the first place but it still does. So don't complain about the comments I mean. And what contains or not contains certainly satisfies people who have experience, ones that reviewed those articles... again most of them are GOOD ARTICLES! — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is silly, and seeing as how the respondents coming to this discussion appear to be mostly unanimous, also frivolous and a waste of time. Multiple of the articles attempting to be deleted are of WP:GA quality. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Passing a GA review does not exempt an article from deletion. The articles may be well-written, but that doesn't mean their subjects pass the notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but nominating multiple WP:GAs for deletion sure seems like an effective way of not holding on to Wikipedia editors that help to contribute Quality content to the site. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - considering that multiple songs in this list clearly meet GNG, and that this seems an incredibly pointy nomination, I think this debate is misguided at best. NSONG is trumped by GNG any day of the week, and at the end of the day, NSONG does not get to unanimously overrule a GNG-passing article, just because the in-depth coverage is part of a larger article about an album. Sorry, Chase; that's not the way Wikipedia works. When you take into account that most of these charted as well... the nomination's grounds become even weaker. An example of just how flawed this is; Love the Way You Lie (Part II) clearly meets both the cherry-picked part of NSONG you referenced as well as GNG; there are multiple references in that article that are specifically about the song, or are in-depth in the context of a performance review - which most definitely does not fall into the album review part. No prejudice against a speedy re-nom, by another editor preferably, of any article here that actually does fail GNG, of course. Also, nominator; I recommend you don't badger the keep !voters. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Again, this is a side-effect of people thinking that passing the GNG somehow mandates the existence of an article. The reasoning behind the SNG is quite sound: when reviewers review albums, they tend to include one-liners about every track on the album. That does not mean that each and every track on the album becomes worthy of an article if the album has received two or three reviews. The thing being discussed in the reviews is the album, not the track.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of appearing to ignore my own advice in my !vote above, have you actually looked at any of the articles, or the sources in them? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let's choose one to pick apart. I see sources all over A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song), but they are sources about things other than the song: how Rihanna was discovered, commentary about other songs, etc. What sources do you think discuss "A Million Miles Away" directly and in detail that are not discussing it in the context of its parent album?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That one I would be inclined to agree with deleting; but in my opinion, there are too many that clearly do meet GNG bundled in here for this nomination to be valid. The one I initially pointed out is one; Complicated has a whole MTV interview dedicated to it, which puts it on the borderline of being notable at the very least (and arguably pushes it over, with the chart position and the few sentences in some of the album reviews), Roc Me Out is in a similar situation (albeit a different type of article in a lesser publication), Skin is notable for its usage in Rihanna's Armani Jeans campaign and appears to easily meet GNG as a result... some do appear to fail GNG genuinely as well, of course. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For "Complicated", that MTV link is a primary source as it consists of Rihanna's own words. Regarding "Roc Me Out", the only significant coverage it gets is from PopDust, which is not a reliable source. The only reliable secondary source used in "Skin" giving significant coverage outside of album reviews is Idolator. It would need multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews to warrant a separate article. Passing WP:GNG isn't always enough to warrant an article, particularly if its only significant coverage is from album reviews. The word of someone closely involved with its creation is also not something that helps pass GNG or any other notability criteria. No matter how much detail an album review gives on a song, such reviews do not count as sufficient coverage for a song as the review pertains more to the album than anything else.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on, since when was an interview a primary source? That's a ridiculous claim. It's an interview/section of an interview specifically about the song, with one of the most major music sources (at least traditionally) there is; not a primary source. Roc Me Out, I can give you that one, I'm not an expert on sources in this area. With Skin, again, you're cherry-picking a quote from a guideline and attempting to use that to trump GNG, regardless of if the subject actually meets GNG or not - not how things work. Sure, just passing GNG doesn't mean that you necessarily need an article, but there's enough content that can be written about most of these that passing GNG here is enough. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is simply the minimal threshold to merit any article. WP:NSONGS is a more specific notability criteria. We have specific notability requirements for a reason, so they should be put to use. The additional requirement of WP:NSONGS is that it can't be from an album review. Interviews are primary sources since they rely on the word of the creator. People commenting on their own work doesn't count as notable coverage per any notability criteria, as that is essentially self-promotion. WP:NSONGS states that notable coverage 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. When much of a song article's content regurgitates its album article, that's not a good sign.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure your interpretation of what makes a source primary is completely erroneous. Regardless, it's clear we're not going to agree on this one, no point going round in circles. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not against individual nominations, but some of these articles, such as "Cold Case Love", obviously pass notability. You can't just lump them all together and give the option to keep or delete all of them. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cold Case Love" does not pass notability. Bar a few passing mentions, virtually all of its information comes from album reviews. The background/production section, excluding one part about the song being Rihanna's favorite from the album, is exclusively about the album and not even the song. The final paragraph is just a fluffed-up version of the credits from the liner notes. Just because some of our editors here can do a good job of making something from virtually nothing doesn't mean that the subject passes notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The song has an interview from JT. 2)Interview where she labels it as her favorite song from Rated R. 3) The song is about the incident with Chris Brown, incident active in their careers more than 5 yrs. 4) It has enough composition and critical reception information to stand alone (even though it's for album reviews as you would say, that's because this is a SONG, not a SINGLE). 5) She performed it live on more than 90 concerts and reviewers wrote about the performance. And just so you know liner notes are often used in GA's and FA's. The song perfectly passes the GA and criteria to standalone. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1/2. Re:Timberlake and Rihanna interviews: see SNUGGUMS' comment above about NSONGS mentioning that published works about subjects "[exclude] 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." 3. Notability is not inherited.  4/5. The album/tour reviews are about the album/tour; the song is only mentioned in passing. That is not considered "significant coverage" by the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are so lame and I don't plan to continue arguing about the notability of the article cause there is notability and that is more than obvious. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are these songs notable because you think they are, or because of Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If the latter, then you need to demonstrate that, not simply say that it's "more than obvious" and make rude/immature comments. That's not helping your case very much in this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I DID show my arguments why they are notable, but according to you they are not, but I don't really care, because I am so over it. My arguments and the arguments of seven other users show that they are notable so... — Tomíca (T2ME) 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None of your arguments for why these songs are notable are rooted in guideline or policy, save for your erroneous OWN and INDISCRIMINATE claims. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say yours OWN. — Tomíca (T2ME) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If "virtually all of its information comes from album reviews" then that means there is at least some sourced information from other sources. So the album reviews are not being used by themselves to establish notability.  If the album reviews are not being used as the sole basis for establishing notability, NSONGS does not override WP:GNG if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria for use as sources. Rlendog (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria" - but... they don't. per the "significant coverage" aspect. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The nominator makes a persuasive, policy-based argument which has not (to my mind) been succesfully countered in the debate thus far. There is no need for numerous articles based on trivial references which serve no purpose other than to reiterate information already contained on the pages relating to Rihanna's albums. Plus, without the clutter of unnecessary content forks, there is genuine potential for the parent articles (i.e. the studio albums) to achieve FA status. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 07:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are basing your vote of delete on the basis that the albums would perhaps not achieve FA status when there is currently no plans to make them an FA, as most aren't even GA, then I don't think that your vote is particularly persuasive. —  ₳aron  10:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you created the article and are trying to protect it. I sympathise. But you would get on better by making arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than blindly disagreeing with any point you don't like. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, most of the material IS NOT on the Rihanna albums, because if it would be, the albums would be like 200kb long, that's the reason most of the articles from Talk That Talk and all the articles from Loud have its own separate pages... — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Earlier in this AFD you responded to policy-based reasoning with "your arguments are so lame" and also expressed a belief that there is a conspiracy to single out articles relating to Rihanna. I'm afraid I don't see the point in trying to discuss my viewpoints with you.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lolol. Trust me, I don't want to discuss with you either, but it's obvious you are a little bit confused thinking all the articles on Wikipedia should become FA. Bye! — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, myself and Tomica had to cut down Loud so much because of how much info there was about all of the songs, not to mention that 7 singles were released from it. —  ₳aron  10:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, cut out some of the unnecessary text on the album articles. That would also put you a step closer to FA. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about making it an FA? No one. So your reason is invalid. Not that these articles would affect that anyway. —  ₳aron  12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. I said that if the dross was cut out then the album articles would stand a chance of getting to FA. My reason is completely valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not, because it's not nominated for FA and there is no plans for it to be nominated for FA! It's an invalid comment as it is purely speculation as to what could happen if x happens. —  ₳aron  12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – nominating a large number of disparate article doesn't allow for proper consideration; it's a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is plenty of sourced material specific to this song to support notability, even if most of it comes from album reviews. While WP:NSONGS suggests that "of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" there is clearly more specific information here (and in at least some of the other nomintated songs) about the song than for most songs whose only references come from album reviews.  So  the NSONGS guideline is being misapplied, or at best poorly applied, in this situation.  And even if it is not, other guidelines such as WP:SUBARTICLE, suggest that this much sourced information about a sub-element of the main article (i.e., the album article), especially if there are multiple cases, should be split out. Even if that was not the case, the portion of NSONGS quoted by the nominator suggests that this article should be merged to the album article.  So it is not clear why he is proposing deletion. Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was created before the guidelines at WP:NSONG were changed. See this version of the guidelines from the day prior to when this article was approved for GA. Under those guidelines, the article could potentially have made it all the way up to featured status. So do we go around retroactively deleting featured articles because we've moved the goalposts since that article achieved that milestone? I can understand a reassessment, but deletion? In short, I don't think we should, apart from major BLP violations, be retroactively deleting quality articles that hours of time and effort have been put into.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I also !voted keep, the idea that encyclopedia articles that aren't up to standards should be kept because they met old standards seems like a really bad idea. Why in the world would we have standards apply to only some articles?? Current standards reflect current consensus, and to start looking at the dates of every article to see which version of a policy applies to it doesn't make sense. This is part of writing in a collaborative environment -- the consensus of the community might mean that someone's work was for naught if it's not up to standards set for the encyclopedia. This sounds like the otherwise reasonable argument that when a law is passed it shouldn't affect people who committed the crime before it was passed, except that here the articles continue to exist and thus it would be more similar to arguing that a new law only applies to people who commit the crime for the first time in the future but anyone who has been steadily committing the crime since before it was passed are ok. TL;DR: policies and guidelines go through rigorous discussion before major changes specifically because they apply to the whole project. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rhododendrites. Also, "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." –Chase (talk / contribs)
 * 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.