In this article we are going to explore the topic of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me) in depth, analyzing its different aspects and its possible implications.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me) is a topic that has been debated for a long time, and is relevant in various contexts, from the personal to the professional sphere. Throughout this article, we will examine the various perspectives that exist on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me), as well as its evolution over time. Likewise, we will try to shed light on the possible future implications of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me) and its impact on our society. We hope that this article can provide a broad and comprehensive overview of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me), helping readers better understand this topic and its implications.
- 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hey Leonardo (She Likes Me for Me) (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)
Fails WP:NSONG. Being a "a top-20 hit in three countries" is not reasonable citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It does indicate that the song may be notable if it's charted, but we need sourcing that talks about the song. It's not a "free pass" just for charting, but it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - charting on four major country charts is an extremely strong indicator of notability. It's exceedingly unlikely that a song would perform so well globally as a single and then proceed to not have a few publications cover the song. If you're having a hard time finding coverage, it's likely because it's a single that was big prior to the internet era. Coverage is likely locked away in hard copy publications. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep The song is still discussed 20 yrs after the fact and . I can look for more, but we've proven notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- And here from a period dead-tree edition of Billboard . Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- And a mini review of the song on a period CD (which I think I might have actually....) . Trivia about the lyrics . Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know what you mean by "not reasonable citation", but that charting is clearly sourced, as is the Australian Gold cert. It could use more to verify other information, but that's more than enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.