Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Lipstick
per precedent. That said (and realizing I might be in the minority), I'm not really a fan of these kinds of articles in general. That is, the song appears to lack any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thereby failing , and  also states that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Regarding the line in  which states "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", if we take this literally, than we can easily craft articles for most every song from every album, provided the album's liner notes - and a couple of album reviews - exist. That reasoning kind of goes against the spirit of the guidelines, IMO. I'm not saying liner notes can't be legitimate sources, but they do not factor in establishing notability. Virtually the entire "Recording and production" section of this article is taken from the '''album'''{{'s}} liner notes, and the bulk of that information is repeated in the "Credits and personnel" section. That leaves the "Composition and critical reception" section, which contains trivial/passing mentions of the song within reviews for the '''album'''. I just prefer seeing something where the '''song''' is the focus - not necessarily the main subject of a write-up, but at least where it's discussed in some depth. As for the song charting, that alone does not warrant a standalone article, as songs routinely get redirected/merged when the article contains little other information - ie, the album's liner notes were not incorporated. Anyway, I'll support keeping this article since that seems to be the result in similar, recent AfDs involving songs by Lady Gaga
— User:Gongshow, 07:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:MUSIC||WP:NSONGS (Wikipedia:Notability)