Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Bich

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. The primary rational for delete here was not notability but whether there was sufficient content to warrant a standalone article (though there was consensus that notability was met, in any case)

There seems a rough consensus either that Sig Cov is met, or more commonly, that there is sufficient content between the sources to justify the standalone article - in a sense, Sig Cov per article didn't have to be satisfied, only the combined level. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bich

[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)

This single by Bhad Bhabie from the mixtape 15 (mixtape) peaked at #68 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold but despite that does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Hi Bich doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"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 ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 (as opposed to the mixtape), from which we can write an article. All the coverage is of the artist or mixtape, not the song. Hence, the song shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but should be redirected to the mixtape (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. These Heaux at least has a tiny bit of coverage in RSes (not enough for a standalone). But this song, Hi Bich, and the third one I nominated, Gucci Flip Flops, have even less coverage in RSes than These Heaux–frankly, zero coverage, which you can see from the articles. NSONG specifically address this exact situation: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Hi Bich and Gucci Flip Flops have only been covered in reviews of 15 (mixtape). And if I'm wrong, prove me wrong by posting WP:THREE good sources discussing this song. Leviv ich 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for pretty much the same reasons as stated over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux. This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. It has enough media coverage to support an additional claim of notability, and just because most of those sources are from the less glamorous side of the celebrity media, they talk about the song sufficiently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repetition: 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 ich 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are far beyond the "risk of repetition" and have used almost the same prose multiple times in three different AfDs. See WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Extremely rare accomplishment? Look at the RIAA list of Gold and Platinum certifications. [1] I count 50 Gold and Platinum certifications in the first half of March 2019 alone! The certification includes digital downloads. [2] In 2017, RIAA certified 1,671 songs and 404 albums. [3] In 2016, 890 songs and 407 albums. [4] In 2015, 934 singles and 122 albums. [5] 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 outside of the album (or in this case, mixtape) on which it appears. In such situations, NSONG advises to merge the stand-alone song article with the album. I'm not battling uphill here, I'm floating comfortably down the river of NSONG consensus. Leviv ich 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
XXL (Jan)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	~ 8 paragraphs, all of them about how the remix of the song includes a "serious diss to Iggy Azalea" and the guests on the remix also diss other people	~ Partial
XXL (Feb)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs total: 2 about the artist's legal troubles; 1 about the remix dissing Iggy Azalea; only 3 actual sentences about the song itself	✘ No
XXL (Mar)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 sentences about the song; 5 paragraphs total	✘ No
The Fader (Oct)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	2 sentences about the song; 5 sentences total	✘ No
The Fader (Dec)	Interview with artist	WP:A/S	6 questions with paragraph-length answers, but only 2 questions about the song	✘ No
The Wrap	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	3 sentences about the song; 6 sentences total	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment – here is a source assessment table for Hi Bich. 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, and who got dissed by whom in the remix. That's it–there's nothing else out there. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost a year and a half ago (September 22, 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 ich 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to meet WP:NSONG, but as is shown here, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This appears to be an exception to the norm that songs that chart and get certified are notable; it apparently has no independent coverage in reliable sources. The song itself simply doesn't seem to be notable, at least based on what sources are here right now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted in an important national chart, and has been certified, with good enough coverage, that is enough to satisfy WP:NSONG. There are enough mentions of the song in major publications [6][7][8][9] either as part of articles on the singer or on the song itself to suggest that it has enough notability. Hzh (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:LAWYERly source analysis is unconvincing; several articles about Bhad Bhabie with 3-5 sentences of description or analysis (musical or cultural, either is fine) of the song is plenty enough media attention on which to hang an article about a notable charting single. Chubbles (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Meets WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 15:08, 7 April 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.