Deletion of Monster (Lady Gaga song)

Comment: It meets the notability guidelines of  and there is a reasonably detailed article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONG)

Comment: Merge is not a sensible option for a modern song. There is no logical way that the contents can go in the album article without unbalancing the album article, for example a sample of this one song doesn't sit in the album article without samples of the other songs. So the result of any merge is that in practice the content is ultimately removed entirely. So the question is, do we keep the song article or delete it. So then we have to look at . Has it been ranked on national or significant music charts? It charted in the UK and New Zealand so clearly the answer to that is yes, note the wording is about being ranked, this has nothing to do with being released or a single. Next part 'a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs'. Looking at the talk page it's assessed as a Stub - that's a bit hard. The criteria of 'a reasonably detailed article' is the heart of the issue for me and rightly given by the nominator. The current sources for the article are not substantial and also I understand that additional references are unlikely in the future. On the other hand we doesn't set a Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive31#Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles|minimum length for article. The body of the current article body has 796 words and we have Featured articles (Tropical Depression Ten (2005),Tropical Storm Erick (2007)) that have less. So for me it's really a borderline situation with 'a reasonably detailed article' and on balance my view that it is reasonably detailed. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)