Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Fool in Love

1250:. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around the Billboard Hot 100. Just because it is number 100 on South Korea, it doesn't make it "less important"; it is still that countries' national music singles chart. It is always nearly exclusively Rihanna articles that gets this treatment, never any of other singers articles which are the same sort of articles as these mentioned above. It is such a waste of not only the editors (myself and Tomica, amongst some others) who have been so many hours on Knowledge creating these articles for readers to elevate the pressure of bulking out album articles as well as wasting peoples time by drawing their attention to articles which PASS THE CRITERIA SUCCESSFULLY. Me nor any other editors create articles which do not pass in the first place. We don't make articles willy nilly. All of these articles mention passes the criteria and I could care less what the deletion nominator has to say about it. It is jumping on a bandwagon and it is not assuming good faith. People are too quick to nominate articles for deletion because they 1364:

Rihanna articles surely means that you will nominate the Gaga articles mentioned by Tomica, yes? Because they fall into the same categorisations stated in your proposal for deletion above. See what I mean, you are fighting a losing battle and have shot yourself in your foot by doing this, because you have trapped yourself in your own web. The reasoning you have given for deleting these Rihanna articles apply directly to the Gaga articles that you have worked on yourself. Mass deletion of these Rihanna articles will also lead me to consider retirement from Knowledge too, or at least a boycott or extended hiatus from going anywhere near Rihanna articles, which would be a shame, because it is primarily Tomica and myself who have completely overhauled the entire Rihanna Wikiproject and it's entire scope. One only needs to look at the amount of Rihanna articles which are GA, FA, FL and DYK to see how much work we have done improving the Rihanna scope for readers. —

2821:"Cold Case Love" does not pass notability. Bar a few passing mentions, virtually all of its information comes from album reviews. The background/production section, excluding one part about the song being Rihanna's favorite from the album, is exclusively about the album and not even the song. The final paragraph is just a fluffed-up version of the credits from the liner notes. Just because some of our editors here can do a good job of making something from virtually nothing doesn't mean that the subject passes notability guidelines. – 3422:

naught if it's not up to standards set for the encyclopedia. This sounds like the otherwise reasonable argument that when a law is passed it shouldn't affect people who committed the crime before it was passed, except that here the articles continue to exist and thus it would be more similar to arguing that a new law only applies to people who commit the crime for the first time in the future but anyone who has been steadily committing the crime since before it was passed are ok. TL;DR: policies and guidelines go through

2851:. 3) The song is about the incident with Chris Brown, incident active in their careers more than 5 yrs. 4) It has enough composition and critical reception information to stand alone (even though it's for album reviews as you would say, that's because this is a SONG, not a SINGLE). 5) She performed it live on more than 90 concerts and reviewers wrote about the performance. And just so you know liner notes are often used in GA's and FA's. The song perfectly passes the GA and criteria to standalone. — 1849:

outside of album reviews from reliable secondary sources. Music video reviews can be used to establish notability provided there are multiple reliable secondary sources reviewing it and are not just brief descriptions. This applies for all songs regardless of who the singer/group is. Songs can also have significant coverage that are not from reviews at all, but this has not occurred here. With no significant coverage outside of album reviews, songs do not warrant separate articles.

3107:- The nominator makes a persuasive, policy-based argument which has not (to my mind) been succesfully countered in the debate thus far. There is no need for numerous articles based on trivial references which serve no purpose other than to reiterate information already contained on the pages relating to Rihanna's albums. Plus, without the clutter of unnecessary content forks, there is genuine potential for the parent articles (i.e. the studio albums) to achieve FA status. 1723:

questions it's notability. "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" has a lot of significant coverage, "Skin" has third party coverage because of the Armani Jeans campaign, "Love the Way You Lie Part II" has also received significant media attention because of it's association with the original. "Breakin' Dishes" was a major dance hit in two different years, despite it not being a released as a single. The list goes on. Some of these articles have even more info that "

3450:"It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Knowledge policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." 2681:

expert on sources in this area. With Skin, again, you're cherry-picking a quote from a guideline and attempting to use that to trump GNG, regardless of if the subject actually meets GNG or not - not how things work. Sure, just passing GNG doesn't mean that you necessarily need an article, but there's enough content that can be written about most of these that passing GNG here is enough.

52:. Keep all, based on the discussion below, without prejudice to limited, individual renominations. I'd recommend no more than 2-3/day. I note in addition that the existence of multiple GAs in this list appears to violate WP:BUNDLE "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled" I believe this instruction has been violated in this case. 3360:, 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. 1280:. I totally agree here with Calvin on his statement written above. I also noted that Rihanna's article always get this kind of treatment while I can find other performers articles which are awfully written or sourced and they are still here and nobody touches them. Note: The user who is AfD-ing all of this articles is a Lady Gaga fan (please check her articles: 1418:

more better condition than the mentioned. Oh, and also that's how Chase got inspired to AfD all the articles... next are other Gaga articles right? ;) We already said why they should be kept and that's more than enough! This AfD is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw while I have been on Knowledge for 5 years! —

3421:

articles?? Current standards reflect current consensus, and to start looking at the dates of every article to see which version of a policy applies to it doesn't make sense. This is part of writing in a collaborative environment -- the consensus of the community might mean that someone's work was for

3355:

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

2105:

You omitted "Notability aside," from the beginning of the quote you selected. Having enough material and a reasonably detailed article does not make the article pass notability guidelines. That quote means that even if a song is notable, it still may not warrant an article if there is a lack of info.

1991:

Charts play an important role, some of these songs above charted in multiple territories and in the top ten in places too. That makes them notable songs, because they sold enough copies purely on the strength of downloads alone to get high chart positions, not that high or low has anything to do with

1742:

NSONGS clearly says, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears...". You and Tomica are misinterpreting it to read "If the only reviews of the song exist in reviews of the album". For many of these songs, the only information published about them

3385:

have made it all the way up to featured status. So do we go around retroactively deleting featured articles because we've moved the goalposts since that article achieved that milestone? I can understand a reassessment, but deletion? In short, I don't think we should, apart from major BLP violations,

2711:

to merit any article. WP:NSONGS is a more specific notability criteria. We have specific notability requirements for a reason, so they should be put to use. The additional requirement of WP:NSONGS is that it can't be from an album review. Interviews are primary sources since they rely on the word of

2486:

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 Knowledge works. When you take into account that most of these charted as well... the nomination's grounds become even weaker. An example

2272:

Most of these fail the GNG as they have no non-trivial sources devoted completely to them (not the albums they come from). For the others, there may be one brief article or so. Notice how most of these song articles reiterate information that can be trimmed down and included (in a more concise form)

2089:

of which there is enough material for all articles. The guidelines are contradictory. First sentence says all forms of media published by sources no related directly to the singer (i.e., not self published) is acceptable, then it says that album reviews are not acceptable, when it just said that all

1769:

But they don't just have coverage from albums. They have coverage from other sources, too. Plus, all bar one charted, and that bar one article has a lot of information. I think you're missing the point that there is more info in a lot of these song articles than a lot of single release articles. The

1417:

where Chase, SNUGGUMS and IndianBio are going against this user who wants to "defend" "Tik Tik Boom" in the wrong way though. An article for that song can exist, only if it's expanded of course. I don't know how he keens to compare the article to the above nominated Rihanna articles which are in far

1363:

Rejecting your advise. Everything we are saying is 100% relevant to the cause. We don't need to brush up on anything related to this. You, however, need to brush up on what song criteria is. You can't have one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for others. You're nominating of these

2491:

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

2680:

Hang on, since when was an interview a primary source? That's a ridiculous claim. It's an interview/section of an interview specifically about the song, with one of the most major music sources (at least traditionally) there is; not a primary source. Roc Me Out, I can give you that one, I'm not an

2599:

meet GNG bundled in here for this nomination to be valid. The one I initially pointed out is one; Complicated has a whole MTV interview dedicated to it, which puts it on the borderline of being notable at the very least (and arguably pushes it over, with the chart position and the few sentences in

1848:

Therefore, not every song will have sufficient coverage to warrant separate articles. Being released/not being released as a single DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY determine notability, and neither do charts regardless of location. What determines notability is whether the song got more than brief mentions

3051:

If "virtually all of its information comes from album reviews" then that means there is at least some sourced information from other sources. So the album reviews are not being used by themselves to establish notability. If the album reviews are not being used as the sole basis for establishing

2645:

reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews to warrant a separate article. Passing WP:GNG isn't always enough to warrant an article, particularly if its only significant coverage is from album reviews. The word of someone closely involved with its creation is also not something that helps

1844:

Knowledge encompasses many lists of links to articles within Knowledge that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Knowledge functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Knowledge is not a directory of everything in the universe that

2600:

some of the album reviews), Roc Me Out is in a similar situation (albeit a different type of article in a lesser publication), Skin is notable for its usage in Rihanna's Armani Jeans campaign and appears to easily meet GNG as a result... some do appear to fail GNG genuinely as well, of course.

2247:

There is the idea of individual discussions, but it should be noted that passing WP:GNG isn't automatically enough for songs to warrant separate articles. The only things not covered by WP:GNG that are covered by WP:NSONGS (a more specific set of notability criteria) is how it must have enough

1722:

that it's basically made up of album reviews. Only difference between "Man Down" and the articles being proposed for deletion above is that it was released as a single and had a music video; aside from that, "Man Down" is the same as all those mentioned above. But because it's a single, no one

1516:

You have to realize that even singles get their critical reception section from the album review external articles. Today, newspapers and websites apart of the lead single they rarely do separate reviews of the songs when they are realized. I can't believe that that's pointed as a problem... —

2872:

1/2. Re:Timberlake and Rihanna interviews: see SNUGGUMS' comment above about NSONGS mentioning that published works about subjects " media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the

1485:

Many of these fail the GNG as they lack "significant coverage" (defined as "address the topic directly" and "more than a trivial mention") in third party sources - much of the information comes from reviews of the songs' parent albums and other articles related to the parent albums. These are

1254:

it does not pass. If any one has an issue with something, take it up with the editors who contributed on their respective talk pages and talk it out first and come to a conclusion. That is a more civilised way of approaching something and it also doesn't take up other editors valuable time on

200:

Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be

1255:

Knowledge, which is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia for people to find out information, instead of letting them get on with their own areas of interest on here and improving poorly written articles and articles which are vandalised; they are the articles that need attention,

1147:, 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! — 1439:

I have no interest in deleting any articles by any editors. I'm not into tit for tat. I think they enrich the music scope of Knowledge. I agree, in all my time on Knowledge, I think this proposal takes the biscuit and is the most thoughtless, insensitive thing I have seen yet.

3196:

Earlier in this AFD you responded to policy-based reasoning with "your arguments are so lame" and also expressed a belief that there is a conspiracy to single out articles relating to Rihanna. I'm afraid I don't see the point in trying to discuss my viewpoints with you.

1879:

Hello, hello... the person I expected is here. I don't want to repeat myself, the statement above is pure BS. The articles have right notability to be apart articles, independent of their parent album. The reasons? We told 100 reasons they can be separate articles... —

2521:: Again, this is a side-effect of people thinking that passing the GNG somehow mandates the existence of an article. The reasoning behind the SNG is quite sound: when reviewers review albums, they tend to include one-liners about every track on the album. That does 1387:. If you would like to put any non-notable songs of hers at AfD, that's your prerogative, but it's completely unrelated to this discussion. Please keep your comments focused on why the Rihanna articles should be kept and refrain from mentioning unrelated articles. – 2577:, but they are sources about things other than the song: how Rihanna was discovered, commentary about other songs, etc. What sources do you think discuss "A Million Miles Away" directly and in detail that are not discussing it in the context of its parent album?— 2353:

This AfD should have not existed in the first place but it still does. So don't complain about the comments I mean. And what contains or not contains certainly satisfies people who have experience, ones that reviewed those articles... again most of them are

3146:

I appreciate that you created the article and are trying to protect it. I sympathise. But you would get on better by making arguments based on Knowledge's policies and guidelines rather than blindly disagreeing with any point you don't like.

2302:... but they DON'T HAVE TO! Just because two editors don't like having song articles on Knowledge and invented some stupid policy, doesn't mean we have to delete a bunch of good articles who have enough material to standalone! — 2248:

independent coverage to grow beyond a stub AND have significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews. "No prejudice against individual discussions" is a fair idea for if these are retained.

1241:

the requirements. I agree with Tomica, whoever created these stupid ideas and rules needs a slap with a cold fish. A lot of single releases don't even get single reviews anymore, so we more often than not now have to

2976:

show my arguments why they are notable, but according to you they are not, but I don't really care, because I am so over it. My arguments and the arguments of seven other users show that they are notable so... —

2626:

For "Complicated", that MTV link is a primary source as it consists of Rihanna's own words. Regarding "Roc Me Out", the only significant coverage it gets is from PopDust, which is not a reliable source. The only

1964:

OWN and INDISCRIMINATE having nothing to do with this discussion. And good articles are not exempt from the AfD process - they can be delisted at any time, so naturally they can be proposed for deletion as well.

1785:

Unfortunately, the new guidelines gained consensus over the "old system". AfD is not the appropriate venue for you to rant about your preferences about the way things used to be. Your comments should be directed

163: 2058:

INDISCRIMINATE is an inclusion policy that says we put data in context with independent sources. It has nothing to do at all with this discussion. Why you continue to mention it is beyond my understanding.

1635:

There is also information available for other non-singles nominated above. That's not the thing. Obviously, this AfD is for the sake. 1) Were the reviews, 2) Now the coverage was not enough. What's next? —

1770:

whole criteria is majorly flawed and that is why editors are going against it's theory and principle it is meant to stand for because it doesn't work. The old system was better and always will be. —

1657:

As clearly stated at the top of the AfD, the bulk of the information about the nominated songs comes from reviews and articles about their parent albums. Significant coverage of the albums makes the

1246:

album reviews for lyrical meaning, genres, composition, style and comparisons, they are fantastic sources of information about songs. And I wholly reject this whole "it chart lowly or poorly" idea;

1697:

reviews and there are not much other information about the song's creation. Despite having a video and charted, it's the same thing. (I am being ironic ofc!) This AfD or the rule above is a BS! —

1300:

and now we have this. Well, a lot of users have left Knowledge... sadly with invented rules like this and delete-happy users, not much of the old guard is staying on wiki anymore. Such a pity ! —

2525:

mean that each and every track on the album becomes worthy of an article if the album has received two or three reviews. The thing being discussed in the reviews is the album, not the track.—

3300:

It's not, because it's not nominated for FA and there is no plans for it to be nominated for FA! It's an invalid comment as it is purely speculation as to what could happen if x happens. —

2946:? If the latter, then you need to demonstrate that, not simply say that it's "more than obvious" and make rude/immature comments. That's not helping your case very much in this discussion. – 2712:

the creator. People commenting on their own work doesn't count as notable coverage per any notability criteria, as that is essentially self-promotion. WP:NSONGS states that notable coverage

2748:

I'm pretty sure your interpretation of what makes a source primary is completely erroneous. Regardless, it's clear we're not going to agree on this one, no point going round in circles.

1292:

etc etc etc). Also to the people who are about to come and see this discussion let me inform you that the articles I have written lately are all overwatched by users and AfD (please see

1190: 258: 253: 994: 989: 262: 207:

While these songs placed (for the most part, rather lowly) on a few national charts, NSONGS also says, "The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though

1841:

per WP:NSONGS. Chase is correct in what constitutes a notable song and what doesn't, even if the criteria has changed over time. It should also be noted that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says

998: 1384: 1322: 245: 2715:

excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work

2210:

all - I think I understand where the nominator was coming from, and see this as a misguided but good faith nomination. However, I side with the other keep arguments on this.

981: 116: 580: 575: 197:: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... 3213:

Lolol. Trust me, I don't want to discuss with you either, but it's obvious you are a little bit confused thinking all the articles on Knowledge should become FA. Bye! —

584: 626: 621: 157: 2416:

Passing a GA review does not exempt an article from deletion. The articles may be well-written, but that doesn't mean their subjects pass the notability guidelines. –

3127:

not achieve FA status when there is currently no plans to make them an FA, as most aren't even GA, then I don't think that your vote is particularly persuasive. —

1212: 630: 567: 3165:

Also, most of the material IS NOT on the Rihanna albums, because if it would be, the albums would be like 200kb long, that's the reason most of the articles from

810: 805: 488: 483: 1086: 1081: 948: 943: 814: 613: 492: 2917:

Your arguments are so lame and I don't plan to continue arguing about the notability of the article cause there is notability and that is more than obvious. —

1576:" the lead single? Isn't a hit? I can tell you singles pages which contain less information than those songs you nominated above. Please check the reviews of " 952: 1169: 1090: 1168:

Tomica, this rule was an RfC that was extensively debated in spring 2013 and ran for the requisite month. It received nothing but Support votes. Please see

797: 764: 759: 475: 1237:- This is ridiculous. All of these songs have charted! Several of them of have received significant coverage and third party coverage!! Charting is only 1073: 935: 768: 1584:", all of them are from the parent album, why? Cause publications simply doesn't bother re-reviewing songs they were placed in a review of the album. — 2323:

What Chase is saying is that these are WP:CFORK's. AFD also is NOT the place to complain about/condescend notability criteria or make snappy remarks.

856: 851: 860: 751: 249: 2998:

None of your arguments for why these songs are notable are rooted in guideline or policy, save for your erroneous OWN and INDISCRIMINATE claims. –

985: 902: 897: 534: 529: 906: 843: 538: 889: 521: 304: 299: 3284:

I did. I said that if the dross was cut out then the album articles would stand a chance of getting to FA. My reason is completely valid.

123: 2482:

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

718: 713: 308: 2574: 1293: 1040: 1035: 571: 241: 3351:- There is plenty of sourced material specific to this song to support notability, even if most of it comes from album reviews. While 1297: 1044: 977: 722: 396: 391: 350: 345: 2229:

without prejudice to speedy renomination of individual songs, but at least a few of these are solid as far as GNG is concerned. --—

1787: 617: 442: 437: 400: 354: 291: 705: 3273:

Who said anything about making it an FA? No one. So your reason is invalid. Not that these articles would affect that anyway. —

1027: 446: 89: 84: 3465: 3087: 3011: 2959: 2904: 2834: 2429: 2286: 2160: 2119: 2072: 2020: 1978: 1914: 1803: 1756: 1676: 1622: 1559: 1503: 1400: 1354: 1129: 801: 479: 383: 337: 227: 93: 17: 3402: 2732: 2664: 2488: 2337: 2262: 1863: 1538:

Yes, but many notable singles receive independent coverage in reliable sources, all things besides song reviews considered. "

1077: 939: 672: 667: 563: 429: 1743:

in sources are from album reviews, which demonstrates the notability of their parent albums, but not the individual songs. –

178: 3413:

While I also !voted keep, the idea that encyclopedia articles that aren't up to standards should be kept because they met

1577: 676: 76: 3381:

of the guidelines from the day prior to when this article was approved for GA. Under those guidelines, the article could

2793:", obviously pass notability. You can't just lump them all together and give the option to keep or delete all of them. — 145: 2806: 755: 609: 1663:

notable. Passing/brief mention of the album's tracks in articles about the album do not make the songs pass the GNG. –

659: 3339: 2646:

pass GNG or any other notability criteria. No matter how much detail an album review gives on a song, such reviews

847: 793: 471: 2087:"a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", 3487: 3356:

being misapplied, or at best poorly applied, in this situation. And even if it is not, other guidelines such as

1069: 931: 40: 3257:

Well, cut out some of the unnecessary text on the album articles. That would also put you a step closer to FA.

2034: 1932: 893: 525: 1542:" is an example of a song with significant coverage - many articles have been written about it outside of the 139: 747: 3074:"if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria" - but... they don't. per the "significant coverage" aspect. – 1289: 135: 3483: 3443: 3408: 3369: 3343: 3335: 3306: 3295: 3279: 3268: 3250: 3225: 3208: 3185: 3158: 3133: 3118: 3091: 3065: 3034: 3015: 2989: 2963: 2929: 2908: 2863: 2838: 2812: 2765: 2760: 2739: 2698: 2693: 2671: 2617: 2612: 2595:

That one I would be inclined to agree with deleting; but in my opinion, there are too many that clearly

2586: 2564: 2559: 2534: 2513: 2508: 2464: 2433: 2407: 2370: 2344: 2314: 2290: 2238: 2221: 2198: 2164: 2138: 2123: 2096: 2076: 2049: 2024: 1998: 1982: 1955: 1918: 1892: 1870: 1807: 1776: 1760: 1733: 1709: 1680: 1648: 1626: 1596: 1563: 1529: 1507: 1476: 1446: 1430: 1404: 1370: 1358: 1312: 1268: 1226: 1204: 1181: 1177: 1159: 1133: 839: 295: 231: 58: 36: 709: 3357: 3331: 1581: 1031: 56: 185: 3461: 3436: 3083: 3007: 2955: 2900: 2830: 2749: 2682: 2601: 2548: 2497: 2478:- considering that multiple songs in this list clearly meet GNG, and that this seems an incredibly 2450: 2425: 2282: 2231: 2156: 2115: 2068: 2016: 1974: 1910: 1799: 1752: 1672: 1618: 1555: 1499: 1396: 1350: 1221: 1199: 1125: 885: 517: 387: 341: 223: 171: 3394: 2726: 2658: 2388:. This is silly, and seeing as how the respondents coming to this discussion appear to be mostly 2331: 2256: 1857: 433: 3330:– nominating a large number of disparate article doesn't allow for proper consideration; it's a 2847:

1) The song has an interview from JT. 2)Interview where she labels it as her favorite song from

2718:. When much of a song article's content regurgitates its album article, that's not a good sign. 2543:

At the risk of appearing to ignore my own advice in my !vote above, have you actually looked at

3417:

standards seems like a really bad idea. Why in the world would we have standards apply to only

2650:

as sufficient coverage for a song as the review pertains more to the album than anything else.

2392:, also frivolous and a waste of time. Multiple of the articles attempting to be deleted are of 3386:

be retroactively deleting quality articles that hours of time and effort have been put into.--

3365: 3061: 2939: 2887:; the song is only mentioned in passing. That is not considered "significant coverage" by the 2877: 2194: 80: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3482:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2147:

It applies to a different scenario that is not applicable to any of the nominated articles. –

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3449: 3352: 3222: 3182: 3031: 2986: 2926: 2860: 2800: 2367: 2311: 2046: 1952: 1889: 1706: 1645: 1593: 1526: 1427: 1334: 1309: 1173: 1156: 1144: 287: 194: 3285: 3258: 3198: 3148: 3108: 2479: 2212: 2090:

published sources unrelated to the singer is acceptable. See? Flawed. It doesn't work. —

1724: 1487: 1330: 1023: 701: 663: 151: 53: 2492:

against a speedy re-nom, by another editor preferably, of any article here that actually

2189:

Why delete or redirect? Why shouldn't the sourced material be merged (with a redirect)?

2451:

not holding on to Knowledge editors that help to contribute Quality content to the site.

3455: 3301: 3274: 3245: 3240:

so much because of how much info there was about all of the songs, not to mention that

3128: 3077: 3001: 2949: 2894: 2824: 2790: 2460: 2419: 2403: 2276: 2150: 2133: 2109: 2091: 2062: 2010: 1993: 1968: 1904: 1793: 1771: 1746: 1728: 1666: 1612: 1549: 1493: 1441: 1390: 1365: 1344: 1338: 1263: 1216: 1194: 1119: 379: 333: 217: 1468:, before getting to the level of WP:NSONG. Seems a very misguided nomination at best. 3387: 3053: 2888: 2720: 2652: 2582: 2530: 2496:

fail GNG, of course. Also, nominator; I recommend you don't badger the keep !voters.

2325: 2250: 1940: 1928: 1851: 1573: 1539: 1465: 1326: 425: 3361: 3057: 2445: 2393: 2355: 2190: 1936: 1470: 1285: 72: 64: 1107: 1061: 1015: 969: 923: 877: 831: 785: 739: 693: 647: 601: 555: 509: 463: 417: 371: 325: 279: 110: 3215: 3175: 3024: 2979: 2943: 2919: 2853: 2794: 2360: 2304: 2039: 1945: 1882: 1699: 1638: 1586: 1519: 1420: 1302: 1281: 1149: 1383:

I have barely touched any of the Lady Gaga song articles mentioned here, and I

1170:

Knowledge talk:Notability (music)/Archive 16#RfC: Proposal for rewording NSONG

655: 3377:

This article was created before the guidelines at WP:NSONG were changed. See

2455: 2398: 2389: 2789:. Not against individual nominations, but some of these articles, such as " 2007:

Please refer back to NSONG which was cited at the top of this discussion. –

1605:

Again, we are looking at more than just critic reviews. We are looking at

3123:

If you are basing your vote of delete on the basis that the albums would

2578: 2526: 1690: 1943:(feel free to AfD this article, I really think it lacks sources...). — 209:

a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria

1992:

it. A chart is a chart, regardless of the placement of the song. —

1790:. As of now, NSONG is a guideline approved by community consensus. – 1414: 1321:

I would seriously advise all of the above commenters to brush up on

3476:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1901:

And none of your "100 reasons" are policy- or guideline-based. –

1546:

parent album. The same cannot be said for the nominated songs. –

3056:

if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria for use as sources.

1609:. Plenty of it is available for the songs you just mentioned. – 2573:

Sure. Let's choose one to pick apart. I see sources all over

1464:

Several of these are Good Articles and the rest easily meet

1296:(nominated by SNUGGUMS, the article is in perfect shape), 3378: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1011: 1007: 1003: 965: 961: 957: 919: 915: 911: 873: 869: 865: 827: 823: 819: 781: 777: 773: 735: 731: 727: 689: 685: 681: 643: 639: 635: 597: 593: 589: 551: 547: 543: 505: 501: 497: 459: 455: 451: 413: 409: 405: 367: 363: 359: 321: 317: 313: 275: 271: 267: 106: 102: 98: 1298:

this which is still undergoing, nominated by IndianBio

170: 1191:

list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions

237:

Also nominated for the same reasons mentioned above:

2132:

It is because there isn't a lack of information. —

1323:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

214:

Other articles will be added to this AfD shortly. –

2449:for deletion sure seems like an effective way of 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3490:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1935:and for all the good articles you want to erase 1385:hardly have a bias for keeping her song articles 1839:Redirect to respective parent albums or Delete 3426:discussion before major changes specifically 1927:And your policy based arguments are too much 1693:" for example? All the reviews come from the 1213:list of Barbados-related deletion discussions 184: 8: 1718:True, "Man Down" was released so long after 1262:which have been passed by other editors. — 1211:Note: This debate has been included in the 1189:Note: This debate has been included in the 2883:4/5. The album/tour reviews are about the 1210: 1188: 2547:of the articles, or the sources in them? 3236:Yes, myself and Tomica had to cut down 1490:of the parent albums' Wiki articles. – 1413:Indeed Calv. And just to show another 3052:notability, NSONGS does not override 7: 2575:A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song) 242:A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song) 3244:singles were released from it. — 978:Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary 24: 3448:Agree with Rhododendrites. Also, 3173:have its own separate pages... — 2944:Knowledge's notability guidelines 2795: 1788:Knowledge talk:Notability (music) 2938:Are these songs notable because 2807: 1172:, and stop making false claims. 1939:. You're violating a policy so 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2489:Love the Way You Lie (Part II) 564:Love the Way You Lie (Part II) 1: 3444:15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3409:15:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3370:13:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3344:12:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3307:12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3296:12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3280:12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3269:11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3251:10:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3226:11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3209:11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3186:10:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3159:11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3134:10:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3119:07:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3092:17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3066:13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 3035:21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 3016:21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2990:21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2964:20:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2930:20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2909:20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2864:20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2839:16:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2813:15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2766:23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2740:18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2699:18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 2634:source used in "Skin" giving 2199:13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 1727:", and that was a single. — 1689:Then why don't you also AfD " 1143:. Whoever added this rule to 59:01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 2801: 2672:03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 2618:00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 2587:00:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 2565:22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2535:22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2514:22:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2487:of just how flawed this is; 2465:23:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2434:18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2408:18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2371:20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2345:19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2315:19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2291:18:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2273:at the parent album pages. – 2239:17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2222:23:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2165:16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2139:10:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC) 2124:20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2106:There is no contradiction. – 2097:20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2077:20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2050:20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2025:20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1999:20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1983:20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1956:20:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1919:20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1893:20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1871:20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1808:20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1777:20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1761:19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1734:19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1710:18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1681:18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1649:18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1627:18:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1597:18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1564:18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1530:18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1508:18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1477:18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1447:17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1431:17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1405:17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1371:17:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1359:17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1313:17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1269:16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1227:16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1205:16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1182:00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 1160:16:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1134:16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 610:Drunk on Love (Rihanna song) 232:15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 2878:Notability is not inherited 2641:is Idolator. It would need 3507: 3169:and all the articles from 794:Do Ya Thang (Rihanna song) 472:Complicated (Rihanna song) 3022:I would say yours OWN. — 1070:Half of Me (Rihanna song) 3479:Please do not modify it. 2638:outside of album reviews 2442:Perhaps, but nominating 932:Nobody's Business (song) 32:Please do not modify it. 748:Farewell (Rihanna song) 2269:18:01, 8 November 2014 1845:exists or has existed. 1290:Gypsy (Lady Gaga song) 2707:WP:GNG is simply the 2636:significant coverage 840:Phresh Out the Runway 2762:(tell Luke off here) 2695:(tell Luke off here) 2614:(tell Luke off here) 2561:(tell Luke off here) 2510:(tell Luke off here) 2300:They can be trimmed 1931:. Also please read 1607:overall information 886:Numb (Rihanna song) 518:Skin (Rihanna song) 3289: 3262: 3202: 3152: 3112: 2940:you think they are 1278:Additional comment 1248:a chart is a chart 48:The result was 3432:the whole project 3287: 3260: 3200: 3150: 3110: 2709:minimal threshold 2035:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1933:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1229: 1207: 3498: 3481: 3441: 3439: 3405: 3397: 3390: 3336:Michael Bednarek 3304: 3293: 3290: 3277: 3266: 3263: 3248: 3224: 3220: 3206: 3203: 3184: 3180: 3156: 3153: 3131: 3116: 3113: 3033: 3029: 2988: 2984: 2942:, or because of 2928: 2924: 2862: 2858: 2809: 2803: 2797: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2735: 2729: 2723: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2667: 2661: 2655: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2369: 2365: 2340: 2334: 2328: 2313: 2309: 2265: 2259: 2253: 2236: 2234: 2218: 2217: 2136: 2094: 2048: 2044: 1996: 1954: 1950: 1891: 1887: 1866: 1860: 1854: 1774: 1731: 1708: 1704: 1647: 1643: 1595: 1591: 1528: 1524: 1473: 1444: 1429: 1425: 1368: 1311: 1307: 1266: 1224: 1219: 1202: 1197: 1158: 1154: 1111: 1093: 1065: 1047: 1019: 1001: 973: 955: 927: 909: 881: 863: 835: 817: 789: 771: 743: 725: 697: 679: 651: 633: 605: 587: 559: 541: 513: 495: 467: 449: 421: 403: 375: 357: 329: 311: 283: 265: 189: 188: 174: 126: 114: 96: 34: 3506: 3505: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3488:deletion review 3477: 3437: 3435: 3407: 3403: 3395: 3388: 3302: 3291: 3286: 3275: 3264: 3259: 3246: 3216: 3214: 3204: 3199: 3176: 3174: 3154: 3149: 3129: 3114: 3109: 3025: 3023: 2980: 2978: 2920: 2918: 2854: 2852: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2733: 2727: 2721: 2689: 2686: 2683: 2665: 2659: 2653: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2555: 2552: 2549: 2504: 2501: 2498: 2361: 2359: 2338: 2332: 2326: 2305: 2303: 2263: 2257: 2251: 2232: 2230: 2215: 2213: 2134: 2092: 2040: 2038: 1994: 1946: 1944: 1883: 1881: 1864: 1858: 1852: 1772: 1729: 1725:Lovebird (song) 1700: 1698: 1639: 1637: 1587: 1585: 1520: 1518: 1471: 1442: 1421: 1419: 1366: 1325:- particularly 1303: 1301: 1264: 1222: 1217: 1200: 1195: 1150: 1148: 1084: 1068: 1038: 1024:No Love Allowed 1022: 992: 976: 946: 930: 900: 884: 854: 838: 808: 792: 762: 746: 716: 700: 670: 654: 624: 608: 578: 562: 532: 516: 486: 470: 440: 424: 394: 378: 348: 332: 302: 288:Breakin' Dishes 286: 256: 240: 131: 122: 87: 71: 68: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3504: 3502: 3493: 3492: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3446: 3438:Rhododendrites 3430:they apply to 3401: 3372: 3346: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3189: 3188: 3167:Talk That Talk 3162: 3161: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3069: 3068: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3019: 3018: 2993: 2992: 2967: 2966: 2933: 2932: 2912: 2911: 2882: 2881: 2875: 2874: 2867: 2866: 2842: 2841: 2816: 2815: 2791:Cold Case Love 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2743: 2742: 2702: 2701: 2675: 2674: 2621: 2620: 2590: 2589: 2568: 2567: 2538: 2537: 2516: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2437: 2436: 2411: 2410: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2348: 2347: 2318: 2317: 2294: 2293: 2270: 2242: 2241: 2233:Rhododendrites 2224: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2142: 2141: 2127: 2126: 2100: 2099: 2080: 2079: 2053: 2052: 2028: 2027: 2002: 2001: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1959: 1958: 1922: 1921: 1896: 1895: 1874: 1873: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1780: 1779: 1764: 1763: 1737: 1736: 1713: 1712: 1684: 1683: 1652: 1651: 1630: 1629: 1600: 1599: 1578:Talk That Talk 1567: 1566: 1544:Talk That Talk 1533: 1532: 1511: 1510: 1480: 1479: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1434: 1433: 1408: 1407: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1272: 1271: 1231: 1230: 1208: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1163: 1162: 1137: 1136: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1066: 1020: 974: 928: 882: 836: 790: 744: 702:Watch n' Learn 698: 652: 606: 560: 514: 468: 422: 380:Cold Case Love 376: 334:Stupid in Love 330: 284: 192: 191: 128: 67: 62: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3503: 3491: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3474: 3473: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3451: 3447: 3445: 3440: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3406: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3391: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3358:WP:SUBARTICLE 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3332:WP:TRAINWRECK 3329: 3326: 3325: 3308: 3305: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3294: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3267: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3227: 3223: 3221: 3219: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3187: 3183: 3181: 3179: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3135: 3132: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3050: 3049: 3036: 3032: 3030: 3028: 3021: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2987: 2985: 2983: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2925: 2923: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2890: 2886: 2879: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2865: 2861: 2859: 2857: 2850: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2804: 2798: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2736: 2730: 2724: 2717: 2716: 2710: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2668: 2662: 2656: 2649: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2633: 2632: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2495: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2384: 2383: 2372: 2368: 2366: 2364: 2357: 2356:GOOD ARTICLES 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2341: 2335: 2329: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2308: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2260: 2254: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2137: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2045: 2043: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1990: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1953: 1951: 1949: 1942: 1941:Bye, Bye, Bye 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1890: 1888: 1886: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1861: 1855: 1847: 1846: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1705: 1703: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1662: 1661: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1644: 1642: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1592: 1590: 1583: 1582:Birthday Cake 1579: 1575: 1574:We Found Love 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1545: 1541: 1540:We Found Love 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1525: 1523: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1489: 1488:content forks 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1475: 1474: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1448: 1445: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1424: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1372: 1369: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1308: 1306: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1261: 1260:Good Articles 1258: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1225: 1220: 1214: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1155: 1153: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1115: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1000: 996: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 954: 950: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 908: 904: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 862: 858: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 816: 812: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 770: 766: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 724: 720: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 678: 674: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 632: 628: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 586: 582: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 540: 536: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 494: 490: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 448: 444: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426:Fading (song) 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 402: 398: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 356: 352: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 310: 306: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 264: 260: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 238: 236: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 221: 220: 219: 212: 210: 205: 203: 202: 196: 187: 183: 180: 177: 173: 169: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 137: 134: 133:Find sources: 129: 125: 121: 118: 112: 108: 104: 100: 95: 91: 86: 82: 78: 74: 70: 69: 66: 63: 61: 60: 57: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3478: 3475: 3454: 3453: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3418: 3414: 3393: 3392: 3382: 3379:this version 3374: 3348: 3327: 3241: 3237: 3217: 3177: 3170: 3166: 3124: 3104: 3076: 3075: 3026: 3000: 2999: 2981: 2973: 2948: 2947: 2921: 2893: 2892: 2884: 2855: 2848: 2823: 2822: 2786: 2761: 2719: 2714: 2713: 2708: 2694: 2651: 2648:do not count 2647: 2642: 2637: 2635: 2630: 2628: 2613: 2596: 2560: 2544: 2522: 2518: 2509: 2493: 2483: 2475: 2454: 2443: 2418: 2417: 2397: 2385: 2362: 2324: 2306: 2299: 2275: 2274: 2249: 2226: 2211: 2207: 2149: 2148: 2108: 2107: 2086: 2061: 2060: 2041: 2009: 2008: 1967: 1966: 1947: 1903: 1902: 1884: 1850: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1792: 1791: 1745: 1744: 1719: 1701: 1694: 1665: 1664: 1659: 1658: 1640: 1611: 1610: 1606: 1588: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1521: 1492: 1491: 1486:essentially 1469: 1461: 1422: 1389: 1388: 1343: 1342: 1304: 1286:Swine (song) 1277: 1259: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1151: 1140: 1118: 1117: 216: 215: 213: 208: 206: 199: 198: 193: 181: 175: 167: 160: 154: 148: 142: 132: 119: 73:Fool in Love 65:Fool in Love 49: 47: 31: 28: 3383:potentially 2476:Speedy Keep 2396:quality. — 2085:I propose: 1572:And isn't " 1282:Aura (song) 1174:BlueMoonset 158:free images 2885:album/tour 1415:discussion 1223:talk to me 1201:talk to me 656:Roc Me Out 54:j⚛e decker 3484:talk page 3353:WP:NSONGS 2631:secondary 2629:reliable 2444:multiple 2390:unanimous 1335:WP:EFFORT 1244:depend on 1218:Jinkinson 1196:Jinkinson 1145:WP:NSONGS 195:WP:NSONGS 37:talk page 3486:or in a 3466:contribs 3424:rigorous 3404:contribs 3088:contribs 3012:contribs 2960:contribs 2905:contribs 2835:contribs 2808:contribs 2722:Snuggums 2654:Snuggums 2643:multiple 2430:contribs 2327:Snuggums 2287:contribs 2252:Snuggums 2161:contribs 2120:contribs 2073:contribs 2021:contribs 1979:contribs 1915:contribs 1853:Snuggums 1804:contribs 1757:contribs 1691:Man Down 1677:contribs 1623:contribs 1560:contribs 1504:contribs 1401:contribs 1355:contribs 1331:WP:MERCY 1130:contribs 228:contribs 201:created. 117:View log 39:or in a 3428:because 3362:Rlendog 3125:perhaps 3058:Rlendog 2849:Rated R 2191:Rlendog 2033:Again, 1472:Lugnuts 1339:WP:ATTP 1087:protect 1082:history 1041:protect 1036:history 995:protect 990:history 949:protect 944:history 903:protect 898:history 857:protect 852:history 811:protect 806:history 765:protect 760:history 719:protect 714:history 673:protect 668:history 627:protect 622:history 581:protect 576:history 535:protect 530:history 489:protect 484:history 443:protect 438:history 397:protect 392:history 351:protect 346:history 305:protect 300:history 259:protect 254:history 164:WP refs 152:scholar 90:protect 85:history 3434:. --— 3288:ŞůṜīΣĻ 3261:ŞůṜīΣĻ 3218:Tomíca 3201:ŞůṜīΣĻ 3178:Tomíca 3151:ŞůṜīΣĻ 3111:ŞůṜīΣĻ 3105:Delete 3054:WP:GNG 3027:Tomíca 2982:Tomíca 2922:Tomíca 2873:work." 2856:Tomíca 2796:Status 2519:Delete 2480:pointy 2446:WP:GAs 2363:Tomíca 2307:Tomíca 2042:Tomíca 1948:Tomíca 1929:WP:OWN 1885:Tomíca 1702:Tomíca 1660:albums 1641:Tomíca 1589:Tomíca 1580:" or " 1522:Tomíca 1466:WP:GNG 1423:Tomíca 1337:, and 1305:Tomíca 1239:one of 1152:Tomíca 1091:delete 1045:delete 999:delete 953:delete 907:delete 861:delete 815:delete 769:delete 723:delete 677:delete 631:delete 585:delete 539:delete 493:delete 447:delete 401:delete 355:delete 309:delete 263:delete 136:Google 94:delete 3456:Chase 3389:¿3fam 3334:. -- 3303:₳aron 3276:₳aron 3247:₳aron 3130:₳aron 3078:Chase 3002:Chase 2950:Chase 2895:Chase 2825:Chase 2734:edits 2666:edits 2420:Chase 2394:WP:GA 2339:edits 2277:Chase 2264:edits 2151:Chase 2135:₳aron 2110:Chase 2093:₳aron 2063:Chase 2011:Chase 1995:₳aron 1969:Chase 1937:WP:GA 1905:Chase 1865:edits 1794:Chase 1773:₳aron 1747:Chase 1730:₳aron 1695:ALBUM 1667:Chase 1613:Chase 1550:Chase 1494:Chase 1443:₳aron 1391:Chase 1367:₳aron 1345:Chase 1265:₳aron 1252:think 1120:Chase 1108:views 1100:watch 1096:links 1062:views 1054:watch 1050:links 1016:views 1008:watch 1004:links 970:views 962:watch 958:links 924:views 916:watch 912:links 878:views 870:watch 866:links 832:views 824:watch 820:links 786:views 778:watch 774:links 740:views 732:watch 728:links 694:views 686:watch 682:links 648:views 640:watch 636:links 602:views 594:watch 590:links 556:views 548:watch 544:links 510:views 502:watch 498:links 464:views 456:watch 452:links 418:views 410:watch 406:links 372:views 364:watch 360:links 326:views 318:watch 314:links 280:views 272:watch 268:links 218:Chase 179:JSTOR 140:books 124:Stats 111:views 103:watch 99:links 16:< 3462:talk 3419:some 3396:ily6 3375:Keep 3366:talk 3349:Keep 3340:talk 3328:Keep 3292:¹98¹ 3265:¹98¹ 3238:Loud 3205:¹98¹ 3171:Loud 3155:¹98¹ 3115:¹98¹ 3084:talk 3062:talk 3008:talk 2956:talk 2901:talk 2831:talk 2802:talk 2787:Keep 2751:Luke 2728:talk 2684:Luke 2660:talk 2603:Luke 2583:talk 2550:Luke 2531:talk 2499:Luke 2494:does 2461:talk 2456:Cirt 2426:talk 2404:talk 2399:Cirt 2386:Keep 2358:! — 2333:talk 2283:talk 2258:talk 2227:Keep 2216:loss 2208:Keep 2195:talk 2157:talk 2116:talk 2069:talk 2037:. — 2017:talk 1975:talk 1911:talk 1859:talk 1800:talk 1753:talk 1720:Loud 1673:talk 1619:talk 1556:talk 1500:talk 1462:Keep 1397:talk 1351:talk 1294:this 1235:Keep 1178:talk 1141:Keep 1126:talk 1104:logs 1078:talk 1074:edit 1058:logs 1032:talk 1028:edit 1012:logs 986:talk 982:edit 966:logs 940:talk 936:edit 920:logs 894:talk 890:edit 874:logs 848:talk 844:edit 828:logs 802:talk 798:edit 782:logs 756:talk 752:edit 736:logs 710:talk 706:edit 690:logs 664:talk 660:edit 644:logs 618:talk 614:edit 598:logs 572:talk 568:edit 552:logs 526:talk 522:edit 506:logs 480:talk 476:edit 460:logs 434:talk 430:edit 414:logs 388:talk 384:edit 368:logs 342:talk 338:edit 322:logs 296:talk 292:edit 276:logs 250:talk 246:edit 224:talk 172:FENS 146:news 107:logs 81:talk 77:edit 50:keep 3442:\\ 3415:old 2974:DID 2891:. – 2889:GNG 2876:3. 2579:Kww 2545:any 2527:Kww 2523:not 2484:not 2237:\\ 1440:— 1341:. – 1327:WAX 1257:NOT 211:." 186:TWL 115:– ( 3464:/ 3368:) 3342:) 3090:) 3086:/ 3064:) 3014:) 3010:/ 2972:I 2962:) 2958:/ 2907:) 2903:/ 2837:) 2833:/ 2811:) 2805:· 2757:94 2754:no 2731:/ 2690:94 2687:no 2663:/ 2609:94 2606:no 2597:do 2585:) 2556:94 2553:no 2533:) 2505:94 2502:no 2463:) 2453:— 2432:) 2428:/ 2406:) 2336:/ 2289:) 2285:/ 2261:/ 2197:) 2163:) 2159:/ 2122:) 2118:/ 2075:) 2071:/ 2023:) 2019:/ 1981:) 1977:/ 1917:) 1913:/ 1862:/ 1806:) 1802:/ 1759:) 1755:/ 1679:) 1675:/ 1625:) 1621:/ 1562:) 1558:/ 1506:) 1502:/ 1403:) 1399:/ 1357:) 1353:/ 1333:, 1329:, 1288:, 1284:, 1215:. 1193:. 1180:) 1132:) 1128:/ 1106:| 1102:| 1098:| 1094:| 1089:| 1085:| 1080:| 1076:| 1060:| 1056:| 1052:| 1048:| 1043:| 1039:| 1034:| 1030:| 1014:| 1010:| 1006:| 1002:| 997:| 993:| 988:| 984:| 968:| 964:| 960:| 956:| 951:| 947:| 942:| 938:| 922:| 918:| 914:| 910:| 905:| 901:| 896:| 892:| 876:| 872:| 868:| 864:| 859:| 855:| 850:| 846:| 830:| 826:| 822:| 818:| 813:| 809:| 804:| 800:| 784:| 780:| 776:| 772:| 767:| 763:| 758:| 754:| 738:| 734:| 730:| 726:| 721:| 717:| 712:| 708:| 692:| 688:| 684:| 680:| 675:| 671:| 666:| 662:| 646:| 642:| 638:| 634:| 629:| 625:| 620:| 616:| 600:| 596:| 592:| 588:| 583:| 579:| 574:| 570:| 554:| 550:| 546:| 542:| 537:| 533:| 528:| 524:| 508:| 504:| 500:| 496:| 491:| 487:| 482:| 478:| 462:| 458:| 454:| 450:| 445:| 441:| 436:| 432:| 416:| 412:| 408:| 404:| 399:| 395:| 390:| 386:| 370:| 366:| 362:| 358:| 353:| 349:| 344:| 340:| 324:| 320:| 316:| 312:| 307:| 303:| 298:| 294:| 278:| 274:| 270:| 266:| 261:| 257:| 252:| 248:| 230:) 226:/ 204:" 166:) 109:| 105:| 101:| 97:| 92:| 88:| 83:| 79:| 3468:) 3460:( 3452:– 3364:( 3338:( 3242:7 3082:( 3060:( 3006:( 2954:( 2899:( 2880:. 2829:( 2799:( 2737:) 2725:( 2669:) 2657:( 2581:( 2529:( 2459:( 2424:( 2402:( 2342:) 2330:( 2281:( 2267:) 2255:( 2214:G 2193:( 2155:( 2114:( 2067:( 2059:– 2015:( 1973:( 1965:– 1909:( 1868:) 1856:( 1798:( 1751:( 1671:( 1617:( 1554:( 1498:( 1395:( 1349:( 1176:( 1124:( 1116:– 1110:) 1072:( 1064:) 1026:( 1018:) 980:( 972:) 934:( 926:) 888:( 880:) 842:( 834:) 796:( 788:) 750:( 742:) 704:( 696:) 658:( 650:) 612:( 604:) 566:( 558:) 520:( 512:) 474:( 466:) 428:( 420:) 382:( 374:) 336:( 328:) 290:( 282:) 244:( 222:( 190:) 182:· 176:· 168:· 161:· 155:· 149:· 143:· 138:( 130:( 127:) 120:· 113:) 75:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Fool in Love - Knowledge

Index