313:, then it must redirect to its parent album. To meet notability, it must chart or become a subject of culture on some country or society. Otherwise, and article about the song is irrelevant. Also, per the CSD A9, a song which main performer doesn't have an article is candidate for deletion. Also, on the guidelines for verifiability, YouTube is only considered a source for music videos, relying on VEVO channels. Otherwise, it is as reliable as any blog. --
359:. Don't compare this to the prior versions that were deleted. This song and dance are very modestly notable, but there is didactic content in this article teach the precise modest notability. In fact, I suggest that you please review the footnotes section and consider withdrawing this nomination. It should be quite clear to you that if you look more closely at the footnotes that this article is not based on YouTube.--
638:
structure issues, to pass the GA process, it'll still need to meet song notability, regardless of the YouTube sources. As you said the other 17 sources coem from very well known media outlets, so there will be no issue with them. I also recommend to expand the article and get it copyedited as i wrote on the review :). --
538:
Yes but about 90% of the article is written in accordance with the information retrieved from YouTube, which is not meant by the guideline as fair. The entire "Kate Upton version" section is written only with stats from YouTube, when only saying "the video has more than 5 millino views on YouTube" is
996:
There are three questions to ask. Is this a notable song? Is this a notable dance? and Is this a notable viral video? It must pass at least one of those three to be kept. I believe it surely passes 3 and based on stuff added to the talk page, it passes 1. It might not pass 2, but it only has to pass
391:
I mentioned the past deleted versions because you said there weren't, shich is not true. I've read the footnotes many times. As you might know, i reviewed the article when it was nominated at GA. I'm not trying to get the article deleted per my personal opinion, which is also unfair. I'm just asking
208:
This article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability and verifiability. I has no chart perfomance, the original performer, 'The Rej3ctz' doesn't have an article on
Knowledge, and most of the information on here relies on YouTube, which is not a reliable source. It has been deleted three times per
443:
Hey i'm not taking a fight. I never meant to fight with you. As i've seen, i'm only dialoguing with you to reach a consensus about the article. If it's deleted or not, it's not the matter. What i wantet to know, as i said, is what community can say about the article rather than my personal opinion.
490:
None of them are from YouTube. I know. But, as an example: the ref #16 has more useful info than only the sentence you wrote. The same with ref #17, #18 and #19. You need to expand the info as long as you can so the reader understand clearly the matter. And i repeat. i'm not fighting. I'm not that
521:
specifically says that if a song shows why it is important or significant, then it can't be speedied. And through the current article's references, it shows that. And the
Youtube sources in the article are only being used to cite number of views for said video, which has routinely been upheld as
1036:
passes WP:GNG based on coverages in suitable sources for the topic. Previous deletes are irrelevant, as the first was an improper delete 1 minute after creation when the article only contained 1 header. The second delete killed off a copyright infringement. Everything is restored and in the
637:
Ok, i exagerated. And even i didn't failed the article for that. As per the GA guideline, unreliable sources can be changed later if the article meets the rest of the criteria. The article failed because of prose, notability andstructure. As well as "Zou Bisou Bisou". If you fix the prose and
794:
I want to apologize either. I recognize i got too far with the YouTube thing. Excuse myself. Of course, be sure that i review the articles on the most neutral way possible. I never fail articles just because i want. But, finally, i apologize for my exagerations.
976:" is very different. Multiple live performances on different tours and it got a music video. It also received a lot more information by way of reviews etc. To be honest I am leaning toward delete for this article as it doesn't have what "Freakum Dress" has.
406:
What are you talking about. I never said their weren't past deleted versions. I put them on the talk page. As far as your reviews go, since you are picking a fight rather than doing a review, I will renominate without making changes and put a note at
539:
more than enough. More than a speddy deletion, as a wrote on the GA review, this article needs cleanup of overcharge of repetitive and redundant information. I'm confident that after the cleanup is done, only 5 to 10 lines will make the article. --
845:
I had very good reasons (based only on guidelines) for failing the article. I didn't failed because of YouTube. I know i went far by nominating it for deletion, but not at failing it. As it is right now, it doesn't meet the criteria.
956:- The article looks in pretty bad shape. I'm gathering this is a single/song? It's a bit hard to tell. If it's a single/song, and it didn't chart (from what I can see it didn't) then I will vote delete as it fails notability.
177:
284:
notable, but that doesn't mean there aren't songs that don't meet those requirements that aren't notable themselves (too many negatives?). This is one example of such a song. For comparison, see
720:
658:
Just wanted to note, only 3 of them are
Youtube: 8, 9, and 20, the rest are not. Though I think he means that the section itself is all info about stats, which is rather irrelevant.
458:
If you mean to dialog please tell me the number of footnotes you see in the "Kate Upton version" section and how many are from YouTube? Then tell me how you calculate 90%.--
888:
all contain significant coverage. The subject's notability appears to exist more as a "dance move" than as a "song", so I'm not too concerned whether or not this meets
916:
Didn't this survive AFD just a week or two ago? If so, what was the name it had then, since this isn't "Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy (2nd nomination)"?
591:
As you came into insults, i'll leave it as this. The community will make the choice. If my point is not correct, i'll accecpt it, that's why i proposed it at first. --
171:
132:
605:
It is as insulting to me that you would make up lies to fail my article as it is to you that I call you a liar. You know full well that 3 out of 20 is not 90%.--
886:
408:
517:
They were deleted before because they didn't give an indication of importance, likely they were just single line, unreferenced sentences. But
137:
883:
1068:
1007:
880:
823:
772:
684:
615:
567:
468:
421:
369:
245:
231:
regardless of chart performance or original performer. As I look at the footnotes, I fail to understand the point about it relying on
339:
of this article. Also, on the same talk page, a deletion log details which user and under which guideline the article was deleted. --
1072:
1011:
827:
776:
688:
619:
571:
472:
425:
373:
249:
68:
17:
105:
100:
192:
109:
872:
335:, on the article milestones, it appears deleted twice on June 2011, and one time May 2012, totalizing three times. So
159:
746:, please? Asking somebody if they are stupid isn't very constructive. Address the content, not the editor. Thanks.
743:
92:
1123:
1042:
40:
674:
Just to be clear 3 of the 20 in the whole article are YouTube and only 1 in the section he is pointing to are.--
753:
874:
280:
is the special notability guideline (SNG) for songs that says, if a song meets these requirements, then it
153:
1064:
1003:
943:
819:
768:
680:
664:
611:
563:
528:
464:
417:
365:
294:
241:
1119:
36:
149:
1038:
1104:
1085:
1046:
1024:
987:
967:
948:
925:
908:
855:
840:
804:
789:
762:
It is a rare case, but I concede that throwing out the term stupid was inappropriate. I apologize.--
757:
734:
701:
669:
647:
632:
600:
584:
548:
533:
500:
485:
453:
438:
401:
386:
348:
322:
299:
262:
218:
74:
1055:
985:
965:
747:
185:
63:
553:
Are you lying or just stupid? That section has 11 footnotes and only one of them was published by
1100:
199:
1076:
1059:
1015:
998:
938:
921:
831:
814:
780:
763:
730:
692:
675:
659:
623:
606:
575:
558:
523:
476:
459:
429:
412:
377:
360:
289:
253:
236:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1118:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
800:
643:
596:
544:
496:
449:
397:
344:
318:
214:
933:- Per Gongshow's sources. Notable as a subject, just not necessarily as a song. Meets the
889:
518:
355:
You keep pointing out that prior versions were deleted. This article is likely to pass at
288:
as one of the best examples of a song that doesn't meet NSONG, but is notable on its own.
277:
1080:
1019:
977:
957:
835:
784:
696:
627:
579:
480:
433:
381:
332:
257:
165:
96:
58:
1096:
973:
934:
899:
893:
810:
356:
285:
273:
228:
917:
726:
126:
847:
796:
639:
592:
540:
492:
445:
393:
340:
314:
210:
522:
allowed, since anyone can verify the numbers by checking the video themselves.
1054:
This nomination is officially wasting WP resources. It should be withdrawn or
88:
80:
554:
232:
227:
I have not seen prior versions of this article, but it now passes
813:
and nominating this for deletion, but I do accept your apology.--
1112:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
491:
kind of users that fight others without hearing anything. --
122:
118:
114:
184:
871:. Going by some of the article's better sources: MTV
721:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
392:the community their thoughts about the article. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1126:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:Please do not missunderstand my statements. --
198:
8:
719:Note: This debate has been included in the
718:
409:Knowledge talk:Good article nominations
7:
57:
742:TonyTheTiger, may I remind you of
309:The guideline says that if a song
24:
809:You went to far failing this at
411:explaining why I am doing so.--
331:And, if you take a look at the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
892:; more importantly, it meets
937:, which is most important.
1143:
978:
958:
337:there were prior versions
1115:Please do not modify it.
1105:17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1086:15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1047:12:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1025:17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
988:16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
968:16:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
949:13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
926:12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
909:00:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
856:12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
841:04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
805:03:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
790:03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
758:03:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
735:03:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
702:03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
670:02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
648:03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
633:03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
601:03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
585:02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
549:02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
534:01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
501:03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
486:02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
454:02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
439:02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
402:02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
387:01:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
349:01:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
323:01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
300:00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
263:00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
219:23:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
75:00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
272:The article meets the
997:one of the three.--
744:no personal attacks
333:article's talk page
54:(non-admin closure)
48:The result was
1084:
1023:
907:
839:
788:
737:
724:
700:
631:
583:
484:
437:
385:
261:
55:
1134:
1117:
1062:
1001:
982:
962:
946:
941:
906:
903:
897:
853:
817:
766:
725:
678:
667:
662:
609:
561:
531:
526:
462:
415:
363:
297:
292:
239:
203:
202:
188:
140:
130:
112:
73:
71:
66:
61:
53:
34:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1124:deletion review
1113:
1039:Graeme Bartlett
944:
939:
901:
898:
885:, and Fox News
848:
665:
660:
529:
524:
295:
290:
145:
136:
103:
87:
84:
69:
64:
59:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1140:
1138:
1129:
1128:
1108:
1107:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
991:
990:
951:
928:
911:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
749:Till I Go Home
739:
738:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
326:
325:
311:is not notable
303:
302:
266:
265:
206:
205:
142:
83:
78:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1139:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:Meets GNG. –
1094:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
986:
983:
981:
975:
974:Freakum Dress
971:
970:
969:
966:
963:
961:
955:
952:
950:
947:
942:
936:
932:
929:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
910:
905:
904:
895:
891:
887:
884:
881:
879:
875:
873:
870:
867:
857:
854:
852:
844:
843:
842:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
793:
792:
791:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
750:
745:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
722:
717:
703:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
677:
673:
672:
671:
668:
663:
657:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
532:
527:
520:
516:
502:
498:
494:
489:
488:
487:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
390:
389:
388:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
304:
301:
298:
293:
287:
286:Freakum Dress
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
267:
264:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
72:
67:
62:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1114:
1111:
1092:
1060:TonyTheTiger
1051:
1033:
999:TonyTheTiger
979:
959:
953:
940:Sergecross73
930:
913:
900:
877:
868:
850:
815:TonyTheTiger
764:TonyTheTiger
748:
676:TonyTheTiger
607:TonyTheTiger
559:TonyTheTiger
460:TonyTheTiger
413:TonyTheTiger
361:TonyTheTiger
336:
310:
306:
281:
269:
237:TonyTheTiger
224:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
49:
47:
31:
28:
882:, ABC News
225:Speedy Keep
172:free images
1077:WP:CHICAGO
1016:WP:CHICAGO
832:WP:CHICAGO
781:WP:CHICAGO
693:WP:CHICAGO
624:WP:CHICAGO
576:WP:CHICAGO
477:WP:CHICAGO
430:WP:CHICAGO
378:WP:CHICAGO
254:WP:CHICAGO
1120:talk page
1093:Snow Keep
1058:closed.--
1037:history.
902:Gongshow
727:• Gene93k
89:Cat Daddy
81:Cat Daddy
37:talk page
1122:or in a
1097:Muboshgu
914:Question
890:WP:NSONG
878:LA Times
519:WP:NSONG
278:WP:NSONG
276:by far.
209:CSD A9.
133:View log
39:or in a
1081:WP:FOUR
1052:Comment
1020:WP:FOUR
954:Comment
918:Nyttend
836:WP:FOUR
785:WP:FOUR
697:WP:FOUR
628:WP:FOUR
580:WP:FOUR
555:YouTube
481:WP:FOUR
434:WP:FOUR
382:WP:FOUR
307:Comment
258:WP:FOUR
233:YouTube
178:WP refs
166:scholar
106:protect
101:history
1056:WP:SNO
980:Aaron
960:Aaron
945:msg me
935:WP:GNG
894:WP:GNG
811:WP:GAC
797:Hahc21
661:Silver
640:Hahc21
593:Hahc21
541:Hahc21
525:Silver
493:Hahc21
446:Hahc21
394:Hahc21
357:WP:GAC
341:Hahc21
315:Hahc21
291:Silver
274:WP:GNG
229:WP:GNG
211:Hahc21
150:Google
110:delete
666:seren
530:seren
296:seren
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
127:views
119:watch
115:links
65:music
16:<
1101:talk
1043:talk
1034:Keep
931:Keep
922:talk
869:Keep
849:Hahc
801:talk
754:talk
731:talk
644:talk
597:talk
545:talk
497:talk
450:talk
398:talk
345:talk
319:talk
270:Keep
215:talk
186:FENS
160:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
50:keep
1073:BIO
1012:BIO
828:BIO
777:BIO
689:BIO
620:BIO
572:BIO
557:.--
473:BIO
426:BIO
374:BIO
250:BIO
235:.--
200:TWL
135:•
131:– (
70:ian
1103:)
1083:)
1045:)
1022:)
984:•
964:•
924:)
896:.
876:,
851:21
846:--
838:)
803:)
795:--
787:)
756:)
733:)
723:.
699:)
646:)
630:)
599:)
582:)
547:)
499:)
483:)
452:)
436:)
400:)
384:)
347:)
321:)
282:is
260:)
217:)
180:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
52:.
1099:(
1079:/
1075:/
1071:/
1069:C
1067:/
1065:T
1063:(
1041:(
1018:/
1014:/
1010:/
1008:C
1006:/
1004:T
1002:(
972:"
920:(
834:/
830:/
826:/
824:C
822:/
820:T
818:(
799:(
783:/
779:/
775:/
773:C
771:/
769:T
767:(
752:(
729:(
695:/
691:/
687:/
685:C
683:/
681:T
679:(
642:(
626:/
622:/
618:/
616:C
614:/
612:T
610:(
595:(
578:/
574:/
570:/
568:C
566:/
564:T
562:(
543:(
495:(
479:/
475:/
471:/
469:C
467:/
465:T
463:(
448:(
432:/
428:/
424:/
422:C
420:/
418:T
416:(
396:(
380:/
376:/
372:/
370:C
368:/
366:T
364:(
343:(
317:(
256:/
252:/
248:/
246:C
244:/
242:T
240:(
213:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
129:)
91:(
60:B
56:→
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.