Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faces_(Candyland_and_Shoffy_song) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)}})

Two years ago, I initially submitted this page to AfD with the weak rationale of "Not notable", and a result of no consensus. I still believe this song is not notable due to the lack of available sources (typically 7 to 10 for a song article), the fact that the song did not make any notable performance or sales chart, and that it has not been nominated for or awarded a notable award, the latter 2 of which are requirements for WP:NSONG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep, there are two reviews and three other references. {{u|Gab4gab}} and I both voted to keep this the last time around, and the AFD for "Faces (Candyland song)" has not yet been posted on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

::It's linked in the nomination, but I've added the Oldafdlist template, if it helps. Bakazaka (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

:: Comment - At a minimum, the article should be merged into Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep- The song is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage which Meets WP:NSONG. I'll point out that the notability criteria presented in the nomination is incorrect. There is no criteria requiring 7-10 sources. The three additional criteria (charting , receiving awards, releases by multiple artists) are not notability requirements. They simply suggest that if a song fits one or more of them then it is likely to have the necessary coverage even if it hasn't been located by editors. The article meets the notability guideline with multiple independent reliable sources and should be kept. I urge {{u|JalenFolf}} to withdraw the nomination because it is based on a misreading of the notability guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: {{re|Jax 0677}} {{re|Gab4gab}} I agree with you that a song article doesn't need seven to ten references, as Jalen has suggested. But Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday don't look like reliable sources to me, and I'm uncertain about Earmilk, which leaves a maximum of two reliable sources for the article (the iTunes link only proves the song exists and was released), so it's still borderline. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:Based on the little info available on Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday I agree they don't appear reliable. Gab4gab (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.