Deletion of Fool in Love

Comment: Whoever added this rule to , it's not right! Neither was discussed or voted, we can not rely only on one or two persons adding a rule so we can then acquire on it! You are wasting labor and time users put in making the articles on the site by deleting it. I suggest keep the song article and others too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)

Comment: Several of these are Good Articles and the rest easily meet , before getting to the level of WP:NSONG. Seems a very misguided nomination at best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: considering that multiple songs in this list clearly meet GNG, and that this seems an incredibly |pointy nomination, I think this debate is misguided at best. NSONG is trumped by GNG any day of the week, and at the end of the day, NSONG does ''not'' get to unanimously overrule a GNG-passing article, just because the in-depth coverage is part of a larger article about an album. Sorry, Chase; that's not the way Wikipedia works. When you take into account that most of these charted as well... the nomination's grounds become even weaker. An example of just how flawed this is; Love the Way You Lie (Part II) clearly meets both the cherry-picked part of NSONG you referenced as well as GNG; there are multiple references in that article that are specifically about the song, or are in-depth in the context of a performance review - which most definitely does not fall into the album review part. No prejudice against a speedy re-nom, by another editor preferably, of any article here that actually ''does'' fail GNG, of course. Also, nominator; I recommend you don't badger the keep !voters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: There is plenty of sourced material specific to this song to support notability, even if most of it comes from album reviews.  While  suggests that "of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" there is clearly more specific information here (and in at least some of the other nomintated songs) about the song than for most songs whose only references come from album reviews.  So  the NSONGS guideline is being misapplied, or at best poorly applied, in this situation.  And even if it is not, other guidelines such as , suggest that this much sourced information about a sub-element of the main article (i.e., the album article), especially if there are multiple cases, should be split out. Even if that was not the case, the portion of NSONGS quoted by the nominator suggests that this article should be merged to the album article.  So it is not clear why he is proposing deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS||WP:SUBARTICLE)