Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Like Love (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.  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Loud Like Love (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules. I apologize for not having removed that unduly-added box myself and sparing everyone this irrelevant discussion.


 * The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.


 * To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:


 * 1) Its subject is notable.
 * 2) It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
 * 3) It is also related and contains information on other highly notable artists, in this case Bret Easton Ellis, who have collaborated with the main artist. Information on that collaboration cannot be found in any other article.
 * 4) It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
 * 5) The article has existed on Wikipedia for nearly three years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
 * 6) Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.


 * In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with above rationale that this is a notable song with rs Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic content relating to a notable band. No benefit to the project from deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (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.