Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Flip Flops

Gucci Flip Flops

Gucci Flip Flops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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 #79 on the Billboard Hot 100 but does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Gucci Flip Flops doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Inherently notable due to charting and for being certified Gold. Unlike the other Bhad Bhabie song articles currently being nominated for deletion, this one does indeed need more evidence of media notice, but that is a reason to improve the article rather than delete it, per
  WP:NEXIST. For instance, this song has been featured in Billboard three times: [1], [2], [3], and additional coverage in the typical hip hop media is not too hard to find. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is no such thing as "inherent notability" for a song, per

  WP:NSONG, which explicitly says that a song is not notable just because it charted or certified. It should receive in-depth coverage in multiple sources. What you've got here are Billboard announcements of the song and the music video, and an obviously-promotional interview with the artist. Each one is just a few paragraphs. None are reviews or analyses of the song. You'd find the same type of Billboard coverage for any song on the BB Hot 100, yet being on the BB Hot 100 doesn't = notability, even if it comes with an announcement in Billboard. There are no sources from which we can write an article about this song. It will be a permanent stub. It is exactly the type of song that NSONG suggests we should be merging to the album. If this one is a keeper, then we should just revise NSONG to say that any song on the BB Hot 100 is notable. Leviv ich 15:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Note - Certifications do not equal sales at this point. Record certifications now include streaming totals, which are not sales - basically if a song is streamed enough times, it counts as a sale. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the adjective "inherently" to spice up my prose and did not say that "inherent notability" is any sort of policy. The true reasons for my vote were stated once and that is sufficient. Saying something once is a virtue that you might want to think about. See

WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the
  WP:GNG. (And this is from a non-fan too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Scrape by NSONG" isn't a thing that exists, per the language of NSONG that says charting and certification "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", that songs that are only discussed in the context of their albums should be merged to their albums, and that songs should have non-trivial coverage in multiple RSes to receive a standalone article. As for GNG, in order to "scrape by" GNG, we need at least two SIGCOV (to meet the "multiple" requirement). There is not even one SIGCOV of this song. Of the three songs I've nominated, this one is by far the weakest on GNG. Leviv ich 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop wasting both of our time with badgering me with responses like this. I understand the GNG and NSONGS, and even if I didn’t, you rehashing the same comment ten times wouldn’t help anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Billboard 1	Interview with artist, no independent analysis or commentary	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs containing four soundbite-length quotes	✘ No
Billboard 2	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	Only brief mentions of the song stating it was released; remaining 4 paragraphs are about the artist	✘ No
Billboard 3	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video	✘ No
Complex 1	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 paragraphs, all about the artist and other artists appearing on remix of song; song itself is merely identified, not discussed	✘ No
Complex 2	~ An article in own voice reporting on an interview with the artist	WP:A/S	3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video	✘ No
XXL 1	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 sentences: 2 are about the song going gold, 1 about it being on XXL's list of best videos 2018	✘ No
XXL 2	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	6 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 2 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video	✘ No
The Wrap	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	Literally mentions the song in one sentence; the rest of the article is about David Spade, Lil Yachty, and the artist	✘ No
Rap-Up	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs: 1 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video, the rest about the artist	✘ 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 Gucci Flip Flops. 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. 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 ago (May 1, 2018); it's 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 18:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - notable due to charting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gristleking (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CHARTING IS NOT NOTABILITY! Especially at the wonderful feat of 79... You need actual sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most Keep stances arent arguing that alone. The argument is that appearing on multiple national all-format charts, coupled with selling over half million copies, meanings there’s a strong likelihood of the sources existing. No one is advocating that sources aren’t necessary. You’re free to your opinion, but inaccurate oversimplifications like this aren’t helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "strong likelihood of the sources existing" being a reason to keep. It's an American song that came out in 2018. If there was significant coverage, we would easily find it. Why speculate on what's likely, instead of evaluating what actually is (the table above)? Leviv ich 19:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, your relentless badgering across these 3 AFDs has made it abundantly clear that you’re unable to understand beyond your own personal stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to meet
  WP:NSONG, but as is shown in the table above, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Although it charted, there seems to be literally no independent coverage of this song. Charting alone isn't enough to create an article - if there's no coverage, it isn't notable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets
  WP:GNG. A Google search turns up independent coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As with the others in this series, the
  WP:LAWYERly source analysis is unconvincing. Analysis of the music video is coverage of the song (the chart is written as if this is insufficient or inferior), and the song has received attention (musical or cultural, either is fine) sufficient to support an article on a notable charting single. The table has several sources that probably should be added to source the article. Chubbles (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  Joy Division Oven Gloves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 8 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.