Deletion of 1+1 (song)

Comment: Even if the song never charts, the current article demonstrates that significant coverage exists for this track in multiple |reliable sources (e.g. MTV, AOL, Pitchfork. Additional coverage not already referenced in the article includes http://consequenceofsound.net/2011/05/check-out-beyonce-11/http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/may/27/beyonce-1-1http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/immaculate-noise/posts/listen-beyonces-1-1-from-new-album-4http://popcrush.com/beyonce-11/; and there are also non-trivial write-ups focusing on the live performance). Subject passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NSONGS)

Comment: I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not (well, maybe ''weak keep''), but I am kinda over these ridiculous AfDs. Only Girl (In the World), Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)|Halo and The Edge of Glory (I could probably dig up countless others) have all been sent to AfD, and then either kept or deleted and later recreated. It's ludicrous to start an AfD on the premise that "it hasn't charted yet". After a few days these songs ''do'' actually chart, and there are numerous songs that are notable due to other coverage. It would be incredibly stupid for every song that charts to be documented on WP, but for every article about a song that does not chart to be deleted. Too many editors misinterpret . Anyway, that's my rant. Continue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)

Comment: The song doesn't pass the criteria for notability per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)