House of Balloons / Glass Table Girls : Note that the article itself indicates that the song had a lack of commercial success.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, the one Billboard article is about all there is.  Never charted, no critical attention in RS.  Nothing we can use for wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Between Billboard , Rolling Stone , and Pitchfork , I think it meets GNG/NMUSIC#1 handily.  The two paragraphs on the song in Impact Magazine don't hurt either.  Article does contain several unreliable sources which need clearing out though.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Looking at WP:NSONGS , commercial success is not a criterion for notability, though NSONGS notes that it is a good indicator.  The two main criteria which NSONGS suggests this article must meet are being the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works" and "there is enough material to write a reasonably detailed article".  The Billboard article passes this easily as the article is specifically about the song, leaving one more source needed for the song to be notable.  Rolling Stone and Pitchfork are more marginal.  While both are part of a "best of" list, NSONGS does not disqualify a source's significance due to that, it only does if the song's coverage is in the context of an album review.  Rolling Stone does not mention the album at all, so it passes that burden.  Pitchfork does and the song's entry seems to be in the context of the Weeknd and House of Balloons , so I do not think it passes that burden.  We, therefore, have two sources with non-trivial coverage out of the context of the album, certainly enough for the song to be notable (albeit barely).  I also think a reasonably detailed article can be created from the sources here.  The Impact & Critical Reception section seems well-sourced while the Composition section could be expanded using those sources.  Cutting the unsourced part of that section, the article would be above stub length from those two sections alone.  If I am wrong about that, I suggest merging and redirecting to House of Balloons if the song is only notable within the context of the album.  ~ UN6892 t c 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've made some edits to the article to cut down on the unsourced material and I think the article should be able to stand on its own based on the "Background and composition" and "Critical reception" sections.  The material in the article now would likely be unbalanced if it were all in the House of Balloons article.  There is some extra material I found from that article, which I will use to expand this one, though there is much less material placed in that article than here.  Thus, I am a bit more confident in my keep vote, though I am not yet willing to stop classifying it as "weak".  ~ UN6892 t c 18:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG/NSONG.  In the spirit of WP:THREE : significant coverage in Billboard , Rolling Stone and Pitchfork .  I disagree with Username6892 above - NSONG only excludes coverage in the context of an album review , not any coverage which mentions the album.  Given that the source is "The Top 100 Tracks of 2011" and the song itself gets significant discussion, I don't think it should be excluded.  WJ94 ( talk ) 15:00, 25 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep