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. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song)[edit]

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

Stub article of song released more than eight weeks ago, with only one reference, and no other indication of notability. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another nomination by this editor that completely failed WP:BEFORE. This is bordering on disruptive. There are basic and obvious "indicators of notability". The song has charted on the US Billboard Official Country chart, and has dedicated, detailed, third party reliable coverage from some of the highest level of sourcing, like Rolling Stone magazine. There's also Billboard magazine that did an article on it. And as nationally televised television network "Country Music Tekevision" noted they even named an entire massive tour with many notable artists on it after the song. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. In addition to the above sources, this song is getting covered at what look to be established genre-specific websites (e.g., [1][2]). gongshow talk 07:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a big fan of an apparent consensus that if a song has charted it should get a namespace with the information it has charted and bugger all else. However, this article has only existed for 3 days and I see no value in premature deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people enforce charting in that way, but that's not really how its supposed to be. Its more along the lines of "If a music release managed to place on a nations major genre chart, chances are, there's probably at least a few reliable sources out there on it - it's hard for a piece of music to be popular enough to chart, yet be totally ignored by journalists and musical outlets." So its less of a guarantee, and more of a "its likely" as far a notability goes. In this case, it was found to be true, with high level sources like Rolling Stone and Billboard existing. But even without those, the nomination lacks common sense. This is a current single for the band, currently climbing up the charts, off of a platinum selling album, from a notable band on a major record label. Obviously notability isn't inherited, but there are so many indicators that sourcing out there is likely to exist. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 10 August 2017 (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.