Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Morning (Kanye West 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. czar 02:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning (Kanye West song)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When taking a closer look at the article, we can see it fails the notability criteria on wiki since it never ranked on a relevant chart (a song may be notable if ranked, not that it is notable), it has not won a single award and despiting having been covered before it was not done by notable artists.

Moreover, there is one source covering the song (in the context of an album review does not establish notability). Reverb Machine is a blog so therefore not a reliably source, despite being created by a musician that goes by the name of Dan Carr, another source is West's official website and only the video is covered on Sterogum, the only reliable source, three links to it, one of those being a duplicate. So if anyone is planing on reviewing this article agains the GA criteria, please hold for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are currently 126 sources in the article. Are you asserting that you can’t find a handful of them that help it meet the WP:GNG? Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Notability for the song WP:NS...no, with only two sources for the video which are pretty similliar. Take a closer look. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources listed in the article are not album reviews. I am sure that not all of those provide significant coverage, but the nomination does not address the many sources that are not album reviews. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this passes WP:GNG as much as it pains me to say. Wm335td (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But tit doesn't pass WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is at least questionable, given over 100 references most of which are not album reviews. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter if it didn't chart, the citations in the Critical Reception and Accolades are more than sufficient. Not a well-thought-out nomination. ValarianB (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No argument provided against the fact that the song is indeed notable. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.