Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Hit


 * 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 delete. Its well established that a good article still needs to meet inclusion standards and in this case the demolition of the sourcing has not been refuted, Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good Hit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for over a year. Charted 193 in South Korea so doesn't really meet WP:NSONGS. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ref check
 * defpen Tiny article saying that new single coming soon
 * Latina Tiny article saying that new single has arrived
 * Softpedia RS? Tiny article saying video has been released
 * Allmusic Album review with Good hit mentioned by name only.
 * Rap up Tiny article offering "sneak peak" at Good Hit
 * Billboard Album review with small mention of Good Hit alongside other songs
 * Buzzworthy Probably best source. Paragraph about the song.
 * Popcrush Album review - 2 sentences on song
 * Slant Album review - "Inaptly named Good Hit" only mention.
 * Digital Spy Album review - (see "Good Hit") used when describing generic songs
 * AV club Same as above
 * LA times About another song - Good Hit gets a short sentence
 * MTV Romania Apparantly ]she is "super hot" in the video
 * Standard coverage for any song released by any major artist. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- the article is listed as a good article, and hasn't hurt anyone for ~6 years. Both of these create a presumption for inclusion, and I haven't seen anything to rebut that presumption. Being a single from a significant artist is also strongly in the article's favor. Passes WP:GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. In fact it suggests that what we see is what we get (i.e. there are unlikely to be any more good sources out there to demonstrate GNG). How long it has been here is irrelevant, but it has been tagged with a notability and reliable sources tag for nearly two years so I am not the first to question its notability. Can you show a reliable source that gives significant independent  coverage of the single (requirement of WP:GNG)? Album reviews don't count. I have gone through all the independent sources in the article and not found anything. It fails the WP:SNG so must rely on GNG. We don't presumed every significant artists singles are notable. The only argument I can think of to keep is that the other singles on the record have singles.  That is weak at the best of time, but especially as some of those singles should probably be deleted as well. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Neutral, we're just into the realms of what constitutes significant coverage, there are a large number of weak refs leading me to a weak keep . Szzuk (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please have a closer look at those refs. The number is less than you think as album reviews don't count towards a singles notability and most of the others consist of a sentence or two. The best ref is an MTV blog AIRcorn (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had another look and switch to neutral, the refs are a bit weaker than at first look. Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On third reflection, now a delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2018 (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.