Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux


 * 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. After a rather lengthy discussion it's clear that there's no consensus to delete. The conversation has been relisted once and garnered some more thoughtful discussion which makes the consensus clearly a keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

These Heaux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The self-released debut single by Bhad Bhabie peaked at #77 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold, but there is a lack of non-trivial coverage. Although there are many mentions of the song, particularly in articles about the artist, the song itself does not receive in-depth treatment. The most in-depth article is from Maxim:, but it's really just a description of the video and quotes from the lyrics, not an actual musical review. The other references are generally two-paragraph mentions announcing the song's release, or focusing on a "diss" in the song relating to a feud between the artist and some other celebrity. We don't have enough sources to write a stand-alone article about this song, although the artist is notable. The article These Heaux should be redirected to and merged with the article Bhad Bhabie. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the Billboard Hot 100. And going gold in the US, which indicates half a million units sold. It’s ludicrous to suggest that a song of this caliber does not at least scrape by the minimum of WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG. (And this is from someone who absolutely hates this song too.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ludicrous"? Doesn't WP:NSONG explicitly say that just because a song charted or is certified doesn't mean it's automatically notable? 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ludicrous. As in, when a song hits national charts and selling half a million copies, there’s reasonable belief that somewhere out there, there’s multiple RS’s covering it in detail. If it’s some random album track that just happened to chart for a single week on an album’s release week at #98 on the Billboard Hot Country chart or something, sure, I could believe that maybe the coverage isn’t out there. But here? No way. Sergecross73   msg me  17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A "reasonable belief", generally, sure. But in this case, for this song, despite it having charted and going gold, there is no RS coverage of the song, as a song, from which we can write an article. All the coverage is of the artist, not the song. Hence, the song shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but should be redirected to the artist (where the scant information about the song that currently exists in RSes–such as the fact that it charted and went gold–can be included in a section about the song, rather than a standalone article). Pretty straightforward argument, really: there's no WP:SIGCOV. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. Being covered in the the media helps a song become even more notable, and this one has been covered in top hip hop and celebrity media sources, while the quality of a media mention cannot be deduced just by counting the number of paragraphs. The sources may indeed be from the cheesy side of the media but the song has been noticed more than enough to support a claim of notability. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. ... NSONG says the exact opposite of this: "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." It always surprises me to see experienced editors argue the exact opposite of what an SNG says. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like getting into the exact same argument at three different AfD's, nor should I have to. Since the nominator is accusing people of not understanding policies, here are a couple that are also relevant: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLUDGEON. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you not follow the music industry or something? A gold certification is extremely rare accomplishment in 2018. It’s going to be an extreme uphill battle for you to convince anyone that it doesn’t indicate notability here, especially coupled with multiple national all-format charting positions. Sergecross73   msg me  15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Extremely rare accomplishment? Look at the RIAA list of Gold and Platinum certifications. I count 50 Gold and Platinum certifications in the first half of March 2019 alone! The certification includes digital downloads.  In 2017, RIAA certified 1,671 songs and 404 albums.  In 2016, 890 songs and 407 albums.  In 2015, 934 singles and 122 albums.  We're talking 1,000 songs a year are certified. Do we write a stand alone article for each one of them? Some editors are saying that certification and/or charting = notability, or as you put it, that they indicate notability. But NSONG says that they "indicate" only that a song "may" be notable, not that it "is" notable. In other words, according to NSONG, charting and/or certifying ≠ notability, only an indication that a song may be notable. This song is not notable because it has no WP:SIGCOV. If it were on an album, NSONG suggests we merge to the album. As this song isn't on an album or the 15 mixtape, it should be merged to the artist's page. All the content (there isn't much) can be on the artist's page. There is no need for a standalone. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Context helps, you know. Do you know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of songs come out every year? Or how much Gold certifications have shrunk since the 1990s? Beyond that, since you seem to be unaware of context or precedent here, have you come across many incidents of RIAA Gold certified songs that got deleted at AFD? I would think it’d be exceptionally rare. I can’t think of one, and I’ve been doing this for a decade. This could be a difficult scenario though, as most would know better to nominate it to begin with. Sergecross73   msg me  17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we write a stand-alone article about every song that RIAA certifies Gold, we will be writing over 1,000 new stand-alone song articles per year, >100 per month, >3 per day, almost all of them will be stubs, and we will become an RIAA catalogue. Not my vision of what an encyclopedia should be. I believe we must have sources from which to write an article, not just write an article about any song that charts. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the way you frame things baffles me. Three articles created a day, for a topic as broad as “songs”, on a website that hosts 5.8+ million articles, is not a lot. And no ones saying we don’t need sources. We’re saying, songs don’t sell half million copies, and get national radio AirPlay, and the don’t get noticed by three or so RS journalists out there. The premise is highly improbable - it’s ridiculously impractical to think that it sold that much and it flew under the radar. There are almost certainly sources in existence, so cleanup is more appropriate. Sergecross73   msg me  20:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm here because I would like these SNG assumptions to meet GNG proof. :-) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – here is a source assessment table for These Heaux. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost two years ago (August 24, 2017); it's highly unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A WP:POINTy test case, as is obvious from nominator's comment I'm here because I would like these SNG assumptions to meet GNG proof. The purpose of SNGs is to save community time and attention, not to be a 100% predictor of coverage in every single possible case. Insisting on wasting that time and attention at AfD in an effort to show that SNGs are not 100% predictors of coverage in every possible case is, in my opinion, not only a misunderstanding of community consensus but also disruptive behavior in an already contentious and difficult area of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia talk:Notability is thataway. This topic meets the SNG, and every other issue is an editing matter that does not need to be handled, much less bludgeoned, at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to meet WP:NSONG, but as was shown, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep The song has been independently covered by a few outlets], however minimal the coverage. That combined with the low charting and certification indicate it barely passes the notability standards. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It has charted in an important national chart with certification, has some coverage, that is good enough to meet WP:NSONG. The assessment table does not show anything but a determination to ignore the validity of the sources, there is for example nothing wrong with the source talking mainly about video, given that the video is about the song. Hzh (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.