Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars in the Sky (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep If I can find something in Rolling Stone about a song, it's notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... 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)[reply]

• 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 [1] Stereogum [2] NME [3] Complex [4][5] Pitchfork [6] Line of Best Fit [7] The Fader [8] and HipHopDX [9] 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)[reply]

  That's fair logic! Sorry for the pedantry - at any rate, this is a keeper. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, found this as well. With the other sources presented above, this song passes GNG (and it's a good, catchy one, too!). I might just add information gathered from those sources into the article if I find the time to do so in the short-term. Otherwise, this firmly passes notability requirements, including WP:NSONG. ~ Tails Wx 06:01, 12 December 2024 (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.