Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love U Better


 * 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) -  The   Magnificentist  12:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Love U Better

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While it barely squeaked onto the Australian charts (#97), clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter if it "barely squeaked". Charting is charting. It still constitutes it as notable. It's "clearly" also in several major news publications (Billboard, XXL Magazine (sourced in article), The Fader, Stereogum, HotNewHipHop . This is just another pointless nomination that won't matter in a month when it gets popular in the states. Just like all his other radio singles. BlaccCrab (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While I respect your edits, this wasn't cool. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is literally nothing wrong with notifying editors to join a entry for deletion. He already tried to keep it restored so i let him know there's a deletion page. I'm not making up his mind. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, there is. It's called "canvassing", see WP:CANVASS. And WP:NSONG, only says that a song may be notable, so when songs place so low on a chart, and have virtually no other coverage, they don't pass WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 21:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Virtually no coverage? Are you blind or is Billboard not a big enough publication for you? lol. BlaccCrab (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable song, Fails NSONG as well as GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I edit no article besides cars so im huffing and puffing trying to get this one deleted because you removed a dead link" BlaccCrab (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may need to go to Specsavers as it's clearly evident I edit articles besides transport and I'm not "huffing and puffing" at all ..... I !vote based on policies not silly pathetic grudges ... As I said life's too short for that. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - It charted. --Jennica ✿ / talk 08:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly meets notability guideline. Also added a section with reliable sources. --Eurofan88 (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC) note to closer - this editor was canvassed to the discussion (see Magnolia677's comment above).  Onel 5969  TT me 15:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Charted (and will probably chart on further charts this week), some decent and reliable coverage.  Ss 112  17:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep charts (or lack thereof) are irrelevant when there are already citations included from Rolling Stone and Rap-Up covering the track in a fair amount of detail. As noted at WP:Notability (music), what truly matters for songs is how much attention in credible secondary sources it gets outside of album reviews and artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary and that there's enough on the song itself to grow beyond a stub. The article could use expansion, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (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.