| Revision as of 16:44, 9 December 2024 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 edits →Stars in the Sky: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:43, 10 December 2024 edit undoVrxces (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users6,247 edits →Stars in the Sky: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Keep''' I don't agree that just because it's briefly mentioned in ''Rolling Stone'' that it should be kept, but given that there's some level of coverage from ''Rolling Stone'' ''Stereogum'' ''NME'' ''Complex'' ''Pitchfork'' ''Line of Best Fit'' ''The Fader'' and ''HipHopDX'' it's hard to imagine a situation where this is not independently notable.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | *'''Keep''' I don't agree that just because it's briefly mentioned in ''Rolling Stone'' that it should be kept, but given that there's some level of coverage from ''Rolling Stone'' ''Stereogum'' ''NME'' ''Complex'' ''Pitchfork'' ''Line of Best Fit'' ''The Fader'' and ''HipHopDX'' it's hard to imagine a situation where this is not independently notable.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | ||
| *:I didn't say ''just'' Rolling Stone. But if it's been covered there, it will also have been covered elsewhere. One source can be sentinel notability, without establishing everything by itself. ] (]) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | *:I didn't say ''just'' Rolling Stone. But if it's been covered there, it will also have been covered elsewhere. One source can be sentinel notability, without establishing everything by itself. ] (]) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:That's fair logic! Sorry for the pedantry - at any rate, this is a keeper. ] (]) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:43, 10 December 2024
Stars in the Sky
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Stars in the Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This standalone song from Sonic the Hedgehog 2 doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. All of the the sources are just promotional stuff. It would be better if it was redirected to either Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack) or Kid Cudi discography. Toby2023 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: The first nomination appears to have been about a now-defunct disability website in the United Kingdom, a completely different and unrelated subject to the subject of the current article (the song, and the associated movie, did not even exist yet at the time of the first nomination). (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep If I can find something in Rolling Stone about a song, it's notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... wait, that's already linked in the article? As are a couple of other clearly RS'es? Can you articulate how you believe the GNG is not met or withdraw this nomination, please? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't agree that just because it's briefly mentioned in Rolling Stone that it should be kept, but given that there's some level of coverage from Rolling Stone Stereogum NME Complex Pitchfork Line of Best Fit The Fader and HipHopDX it's hard to imagine a situation where this is not independently notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs)
- I didn't say just Rolling Stone. But if it's been covered there, it will also have been covered elsewhere. One source can be sentinel notability, without establishing everything by itself. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair logic! Sorry for the pedantry - at any rate, this is a keeper. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)