Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry (Fergie song)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hungry (Fergie song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable per WP:NSONGS as it did not chart, nor did it receive sufficient coverage independent of the parent album. Additionally the information could be and is largely already sufficiently covered at the album's page. ≫ ( Lil- Unique1 ) -{ Talk  }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ ( Lil- Unique1 ) -{  Talk  }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per WP:NSONGS. Sourcing and content mostly in the context of the album, so it’s better to be covered there. Sergecross73   msg me  23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The song did receive independent coverage in the following sources (i.e. outside of album reviews): 1234567891011121314151617. I am sure the nominator already knows this, but I want to emphasize the WP:NSONG policy only says chart placement may be a sign of notability. The focus should be kept on whether or not this song has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder Aoba47, I am aware that chart placement isn't a deciding factor necessarily however many of the sources listed above and already in the article speak about the existence of the song or the music video. This coverage could be neatly and succinctly on the album's page. As another indicator why this may not be notable, according to the page views analysis, it receives on average 8 views per day compared to the album which receives an average of 282 views per day. In terms of where people are more likely to be informed about the topic, its likely to be the album page. ≫ ( Lil- Unique1 ) -{  Talk  }- 08:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I would slightly push back against the part that the above sources only cover "the existence of the song or the music video", as some do talk about the song's lyrics and sound and provide critical commentary. However, I will leave any further discussion to other editors. Page views are not really relevant to a conversation on notability. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Aoba47's sources are adequate to meet notability under WP:NSONG, so no need or benefit to redirecting or deleting. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Aoba47. With the song's independent coverage indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:02, 22 June 2020 (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.