Talk:Gotta Have It (song)

Gotta Have It (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there a single cover?[edit]

Because I saw several times a single cover for this song, I just do not know whether it's fake or not. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gotta Have It (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been corrected.

Lead

Fixed a few issues here myself.

Thank you!

Background

Like I stated on my review of "No Church in the Wild", how about including some of the songs they did together?

Done

Composition

Source for the "Alternative hip hop" genre?

Removed.

Reception

There are two "s"'s on critics.

Done.

References

Like "No Church in the Wild", there are issues with the references. I'm not gonna go in specific, but just take a look at them and correct any issues. Once done, if there are any more, I will be specific on what needs to be done.

Done to the best of my abilities, also re: The No Church review.

All issues have been addressed. Passing the article! Statυs (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Arguments balance out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta Have It (song) → Gotta Have It – Only one song with an article called "Gotta Have It". 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:99F1:DAC6:CA98:C540 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@/2601:8C:4001:DCB9:99F1:DAC6:CA98:C540: And before that, Gotta Have It to Gotta Have It (disambiguation), but is the song a dominant meaning? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is the only song with an article of the name "Gotta Be It". 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:B512:98D0:300D:D9B7 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the clear ambiguity indicated on the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The fact that there's only one article is actually pretty good evidence that it's primary. There may be cases where it's not, but there'd have to be a strong counterargument. Dohn joe (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because out of all the songs on the disambiguation page this is, just like the nominator said, the only topic that actually has the name "Gotta Have It" with an article. 5.148.89.130 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Dab page shows several other songs by notable artists; even if the individual songs do not have an article yet, grabbing the name for this song would bury the others into oblivion, which is contrary to the spirit of neutrality. I would recommend renaming this article to Gotta Have It (Kanye West and Jay Z song) — JFG ^talk 10:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - being the only article with this exact title does not make a No.69 song the primary topic. If it did we'd have a guideline WP:ONLYARTICLEWITHTHISEXACTTITLE. We don't. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think any of the other entries on the dab qualify for WP:GNG, so this is pretty much the only valid article on this title, and hence is WP:PTOPIC. — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. The fact that a specific entity is the only one with an independent article does not necessarily make it the most significant use of the name, particularly where the name is a common phrase. Historically, the most important use of the phrase may well be its use as the Pepsi slogan in the early 1990s. bd2412 T 17:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's unlikely any other article needing the title will be written, but even if one is, this will still likely be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And if it's not, we can always move it then. Station1 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are many topics listed at the DAB which are likely search terms, including even other songs. If this song didn't exist, we'd still have the the DAB to lead to these other topics. SO, the question is, is the song the primary topic? The evidence so far is underwhelming. Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.