1180:
information overlapping between the song's article and the album's article is acceptable. And fans of the singer who want to find out particular information about the song, including its composition, its particular background, its status as being shortlisted as a possible single, its critical reception, its live performances, etc. can find it all in this one article. I just think a song with this much coverage (including coverage in major publications such as
585:
360:
had selected "California King Bed" as the next single to be released from the album in the United States; while internationally, it served as the fourth single, as it was announced. In the United States, however, "Man Down" was sent for radio adds before "California King Bed". And I can't find any composition info.
937:
etc. They all specifically talk about this song. You don't want to look at those two examples because you don't want to see that I have proved you wrong. There are 9 reliable sources which talk about the song as well as it's composition. Why do people focus on deleting notable articles like this one
296:
which didn't become a single. There is literally loads of info on Skin and
Complicated, but it hasn't charted, so I can't create an article. All of the reviews relate to Fading, and the background section is about how it nearly became a single (it was actually the only one out of the four choices by
359:
of the background section. All of this might as well be removed: "Recording sessions for Loud began in
February 2010, and continued for six months, overlapping with her Last Girl on Earth Tour and filming during her debut feature film Battleship (2012). On March 12, 2011, it was confirmed that fans
196:
states "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have
374:
But that info has to do with
Rihanna asking fans about the next single, and Fading was one of them, that constitutes as Background info, as it was shortlisted to become a single. And multiple reviewers talk about the songs genre, instrumental and lyrics in the Critical reception section, in fact,
212:
and other singles sections. The background of this article is bloated with information the related to "Man Down" and, "Cheers" and "California King Bed" so that this can become a GA. This article is absolutely not needed, just because it charted does not mean that it gets a page. Every single
1179:
Regardless of whether sources have talked about the song by itself or as part of reviews of the whole album, the fact is that numerous sources have deemed the song's importance worthy enough to highlight. Surely this coverage makes the song notable. And surely a certain amount of background
751:
covered by reliable sources. No evidence has been given of this significant coverage here and the references in the article are about the album and only give passing mention to the song itself (usually just a sentence - sometimes in conjunction with another song). Needs to be shown to meet
239:
Best
Rihanna song but I agree with everything CK has written. Only the two final sentences of the 'Background' section are relevant to the song. Aside from the odd inevitable mention in album reviews and a very low UK charting, the song has not received any coverage in reliable sources.
843:
I am not familiar at all with
Peacock so I can't really comment on that. One of the cornerstones of notability (as I understand it) is that the item in question receives significant coverage in secondary sources. I am sorry but I am just not seeing that with the references provided.
890:. I am not going to go on a witch hunt for other Rihanna (or similar) songs to see if they meet my interpretation of the notability guidelines. However, I have looked through the sources given for this article and do not think it does. Show me some reliable, independent and
336:
Saying the
Background info has nothing to do with it is basically saying that it has nothing to do with being on the Man Down and CKB articles either. And there is composition info, it's in the critical reception section as part of the reviews, didn't you read it?
48:. The deletes had a bit stronger argument based on my understanding of policy, but a legitimate argument can be made for the keep's interpretation notability, and given the not-unreasonable position I don't think I can find a rough consensus to delete.
992:
It is important to include critical opinion of a song in its article, which can be derived from album reviews, however these do not provide evidence for independent notability. Things like a music video, single release, award nominations and
1156:, which how it was in the first place (I didn't create the article, I just wrote it), even though there is enough coverage and information with regard to background info, reviews, composition and live performances, with addition of charting.
938:
instead of deleting the articles which have about 2 lines worth of info. People's priorities on here are so wrong. This is not a single, which as soon as it becomes one, gains 100% more coverage. This is just a song from
655:
at all? It seems quite a shame that instead of focusing on the many, many song articles that do not pass a single guideline, people are instead wasting everyone's time and energy nominating articles that clearly meet the
162:
863:
Well, if you become familiar and look at that section of
Peacock, you will see that I have proved my point. And I don't see how they aren't significant secondary sources here, because there is. No different to
775:
How else do you think there will be reviews? Just because the song is covered by reviews from the album, doesn't make the article any less notable or reliable. Plus, that point is dead because after all,
280:
charted, it doesn't matter where it charted. And it's not bloated with information with the background section. It tells of how
Rihanna asked her fans which song they would like to become a single,
798:
My point is that if the song is really notable there will be reviews written just about the song or it will at least receive more mention in the album reviews than I am seeing at the moment.
1083:
Doesn't matter much if Keeps are outnumbering, but this is (what I believe) the truth. The topic has received very little independant coverage, and the information looks mergeable to
467:
825:
reviews, and this is a song which peaked at #1 on the US Dance charts without any promotion or single release, so it shows that you don't need to have independent song reviews.
716:
Sorry that wasn't for you lol, didn't realise I had written here, I thought I had written it in the paragraph below in response to AirCorn. It's hard to navigate in this text!
156:
123:
412:. There are hundred of articles on Knowledge about songs which do not deserve to be here. I do not believe "Fading" is one of them. Out of over 25 professional reviews
318:
per nominator. It's just a song that managed to chart in the top 200. Most of the background section has nothing to do with the song and there is no composition info.
416:
received, above 80% of them mention this song. It got significant coverage. The community is happy to have pages like this exist when there are reliable sources.
297:
Rihanna not to). No one seems to have a problem with Gaga, Mariah and
Beyonce non-single articles being created which have barely charted, so this is no excuse.
1087:
too easily. The album reviews and single selection info especially. Plus, simply charting does not warrant a song article. CK's points are all valid as well. —
567:- song has impacted a music chart, therefore it is notable. Shouldn't we be focusing on songs that has not impacted any charts and has an article on enWP?
197:
won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.
942:
which a lot of people commented about, thus making it a notable song. It's just like any other 'song' article on
Knowledge on here which is notable.
199:
Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article
632:
636:
96:
91:
100:
1030:
But to be honest, you could say that for any singer on here. Will everyone know about Adele's non single articles who don't own
997:
media coverage (which is usually secondary to these others) are what make a song notable. Will many people except those who own
177:
628:
573:
17:
144:
1042:? if we had that attitude, none of these articles, which provide information to the reader, would ever get the light of day.
272:
There is no reason to delete this article. It's charted and has had a considerable amount of reviews. It is no different to "
83:
404:. This article may not be of a reasonable size (if for you reasonable is above 25Kb), but it has enough information to meet
1188:), as evidenced by the amount of information included in the article—very little of which, if any, is fluff—is notable.
1124:
1011:
427:
250:
58:
887:
603:
138:
530:
1212:
555:
36:
1152:
Can I just say that if this consensus is going to result in a delete, then I'd rather it be re-directed back to
1211:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
423:
365:
323:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
134:
224:
1088:
523:
1197:
1170:
1145:
1141:
1128:
1105:
1055:
1025:
955:
908:
881:
858:
838:
812:
793:
770:
729:
711:
692:
670:
615:
578:
559:
538:
506:
482:
456:
437:
388:
369:
350:
327:
310:
264:
230:
65:
184:
218:
780:
90% of songs reviews are derived from the album reviews, I've written enough Rihanna articles to know.
706:
665:
933:
648:
551:
478:
209:
208:
charted and with that aside this article is not needed at all. All the information if covered under
1168:
1053:
953:
879:
836:
791:
727:
690:
576:
418:
386:
361:
348:
319:
308:
289:
170:
698:
657:
921:
865:
516:
500:
273:
87:
150:
1193:
1137:
905:
855:
809:
767:
453:
442:
That about 20% of the album reviewers do not even mention this song seems more telling to me.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1017:
817:
But you can't expect that from a song that hasn't been released as a single. If you look at
409:
256:
54:
647:, then why nominate this article when it offers the exact same? It's a double standard. As
744:
644:
624:
547:
474:
193:
1158:
1043:
943:
869:
826:
818:
781:
717:
680:
608:
568:
376:
338:
298:
276:", which is of the same length roughly. "Barely charted" is not a reason to delete, it
927:
753:
652:
640:
592:
495:
405:
79:
71:
292:. "Odd inevitable reviews" is also redundant, as that could be said for any song on
1189:
895:
845:
799:
757:
443:
117:
1115:
1004:
243:
49:
651:
just said, shouldn't we be focused on songs that did not chart and don't pass
913:
I don't see how you can get more reliable or independent or significant than
697:
I'm voting in SUPPORT of this article and you're giving me grief? Um...WTF?--
599:
285:
627:
easily. Perhaps expand the composition section a bit? Regardless, if
1034:? Will everyone know Beyonce's non single articles who don't own
1205:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
894:
coverage of this song and I would be happy for this to be kept.
915:
493:- Enough information to be covered outside the album page.
1038:? Will everyone know Gaga's non single articles who don't
821:, the entire Critical reception section is made up from
113:
109:
105:
514:- No need to delete a solid article and GA candidate.
169:
468:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
282:
it's just as relevant and important in this article
213:reference is related to another article, there is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1215:). No further edits should be made to this page.
215:not one reference directly relating to "Fading"
183:
8:
1001:have heard of this song? I don't think so. —
466:Note: This debate has been included in the
465:
7:
623:- Excellent article, plus it passes
886:All that would be proving is that
24:
747:is irrelevant if the song is not
633:I Miss You (Beyoncé Knowles song)
637:Ave Maria (Beyoncé Knowles song)
583:
550:. Plus it has enough coverage.
546:- It charted in the UK, passes
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
679:covered by reliable sources.
1198:18:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
730:18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
712:18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
629:Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song)
66:05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
1171:11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1146:02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1129:19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
1106:10:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
1056:21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1026:21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
956:13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
909:13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
882:12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
859:12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
839:12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
813:11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
794:11:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
771:06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
693:13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
671:12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
616:07:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
579:23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
560:22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
539:22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
507:21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
483:13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
457:06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
438:13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
389:13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
370:13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
351:12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
328:12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
311:10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
265:03:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
231:03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
1232:
1208:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
375:nearly every one does.
237:Delete/Salted redirect
934:Entertainment Weekly
210:Loud (Rihanna album)
888:WP:otherstuffexists
290:California King Bed
1186:The New York Times
922:The New York Times
866:Raining Men (song)
274:Raining Men (song)
44:The result was
1114:per nominator. —
756:not just claimed.
614:
485:
471:
435:
63:
61:So let it be done
56:
1223:
1210:
1165:
1120:
1100:
1099:
1050:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1007:
950:
903:
876:
853:
833:
807:
788:
765:
724:
709:
704:
701:
687:
668:
663:
660:
613:
611:
606:
596:
590:
587:
586:
571:
534:
527:
520:
505:
503:
498:
472:
451:
436:
421:
383:
345:
305:
263:
259:
253:
246:
227:
221:
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
59:
55:
34:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1213:deletion review
1206:
1159:
1127:
1116:
1095:
1094:
1089:
1044:
1023:
1018:
1012:
1005:
1002:
944:
897:
870:
847:
827:
801:
782:
759:
718:
707:
702:
699:
681:
666:
661:
658:
649:My love is love
609:
604:
597:
588:
584:
569:
552:My love is love
532:
525:
518:
501:
496:
494:
445:
417:
377:
339:
299:
262:
257:
251:
244:
241:
225:
219:
130:
94:
78:
75:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1229:
1227:
1218:
1217:
1201:
1200:
1149:
1148:
1131:
1123:
1108:
1090:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1010:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
819:Peacock (song)
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
618:
591:It passes the
581:
562:
541:
509:
487:
486:
462:
461:
460:
459:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
331:
330:
313:
267:
249:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1228:
1216:
1214:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:Rolling Stone
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1163:
1157:
1155:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1119:
1113:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1041:
1040:Born This Way
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1015:
1009:
1008:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
957:
954:
951:
949:
948:
941:
936:
935:
930:
929:
928:Rolling Stone
924:
923:
918:
917:
912:
911:
910:
907:
904:
902:
901:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
880:
877:
875:
874:
867:
862:
861:
860:
857:
854:
852:
851:
842:
841:
840:
837:
834:
832:
831:
824:
823:Teenage Dream
820:
816:
815:
814:
811:
808:
806:
805:
797:
796:
795:
792:
789:
787:
786:
779:
774:
773:
772:
769:
766:
764:
763:
755:
750:
749:significantly
746:
742:
739:
731:
728:
725:
723:
722:
715:
714:
713:
710:
705:
696:
695:
694:
691:
688:
686:
685:
678:
674:
673:
672:
669:
664:
656:guidelines.--
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
617:
612:
607:
602:
601:
594:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
566:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
537:
536:
535:
529:
528:
522:
521:
513:
510:
508:
504:
499:
492:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
469:
464:
463:
458:
455:
452:
450:
449:
441:
440:
439:
433:
431:
425:
420:
419:★Jivesh 1205★
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
390:
387:
384:
382:
381:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
358:
354:
353:
352:
349:
346:
344:
343:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
312:
309:
306:
304:
303:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
266:
261:
260:
254:
248:
247:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
222:
220:(CK)Lakeshade
216:
211:
207:
202:
200:
195:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:Fading (song)
77:
76:
73:
72:Fading (song)
70:
68:
67:
64:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1207:
1204:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1161:
1160:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1138:Stuartyeates
1133:
1117:
1111:
1102:
1096:
1091:
1084:
1080:
1046:
1045:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1016:
1003:
998:
994:
946:
945:
939:
932:
926:
920:
914:
899:
898:
891:
872:
871:
849:
848:
829:
828:
822:
803:
802:
784:
783:
777:
761:
760:
748:
740:
720:
719:
683:
682:
676:
620:
598:
564:
543:
531:
524:
517:
515:
511:
490:
447:
446:
429:
413:
401:
379:
378:
356:
341:
340:
315:
301:
300:
293:
284:as it is in
281:
277:
269:
255:
242:
236:
214:
205:
203:
198:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
50:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1177:Strong Keep
995:significant
892:significant
621:Speedy Keep
565:Speedy keep
157:free images
475:Tom Morris
432:a try!!!♫♫
1136:per nom.
745:WP:NSONGs
639:all pass
410:WP:NSONGS
204:The song
1125:contribs
743:Passing
645:WP:NSONG
625:WP:NSONG
548:WP:NSONG
286:Man Down
194:WP:NSONG
124:View log
1190:Moisejp
1162:Calvin
1097:PENGUIN
1047:Calvin
947:Calvin
873:Calvin
830:Calvin
785:Calvin
721:Calvin
684:Calvin
526:Nidhiki
428:♫♫Give
380:Calvin
362:Pancake
355:I said
342:Calvin
320:Pancake
302:Calvin
226:talk2me
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1134:Delete
1118:Status
1112:Delete
1081:Delete
1006:Andrew
906:(talk)
856:(talk)
810:(talk)
768:(talk)
754:WP:GNG
741:Delete
653:WP:GNG
641:WP:GNG
593:WP:GNG
454:(talk)
406:WP:GNG
316:Delete
245:Andrew
206:barely
135:Google
101:delete
51:Xymmax
703:mango
662:mango
497:Candy
278:still
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1194:talk
1184:and
1154:Loud
1142:talk
1085:Loud
1019:talk
999:Loud
940:Loud
900:corn
850:corn
804:corn
762:corn
708:mwa!
700:miko
667:mwa!
659:miko
643:and
635:and
589:Keep
570:Jona
556:talk
544:Keep
512:Keep
491:Keep
479:talk
448:corn
424:talk
414:Loud
402:Keep
366:talk
357:most
324:talk
294:Loud
288:and
270:Keep
258:talk
217:. -
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
1092:WP:
916:NME
896:AIR
846:AIR
800:AIR
778:all
758:AIR
675:It
574:yo!
519:Toa
502:o32
444:AIR
408:and
201:"
185:TWL
122:– (
1196:)
1167:•
1144:)
1052:•
1032:21
952:•
931:,
925:,
919:,
878:•
868:.
835:•
790:•
726:•
689:•
677:is
631:,
610:☭
558:)
533:05
481:)
470:.
426:/
385:•
368:)
347:•
326:)
307:•
229:-
223:-
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
1192:(
1140:(
1122:{
1110:'
1103:·
1036:4
1013:s
605:⚑
600:Σ
595:→
554:(
477:(
473:—
434:)
430:4
422:(
364:(
322:(
252:s
240:—
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.