Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Friday (Rebecca Black song)

1146:. But I don't think anyone actually hates the girl, in fact many seem to love her for successfully parodying the pop music industry in a brilliant way, albeit probably unintentionally. I don't think this is going away, may well be the start of a highly successful career, as previous said this isn't someone ranting in their bedroom and becoming a meme. She has the force of a record label behind, is twittering away on twitter about how excited she is about all the attention she is getting. I think if the child came out and said she regretted ever doing the video and wanted to forget the whole thing then the article could be deleted on purely compassionate grounds. But as I said she has no shame in having her name attached to the song, more power to her for that btw. So in conclusion: not offensive, notable for now, and I agree with the above comment that the article should be more than just the negative reaction. I will attempt to write a short neutral description of the video. If in six months then this is proved to be a momentary fad THEN open an afD and see what happens, but no crystal balls at this stage I'm afraid.-- 1689:. I'd normally argue strongly against keeping articles based on flash-in-the-pan news stories about lulzy internet memes, but the coverage this song has picked up in a wide variety of very high-quality reliable sources is remarkable. It comments on the phenomenon of teen pop, of internet celebrity, of the way you can become famous overnight on the internet, and on the use of autotune. I strongly suspect this will be one of those things that still gets referred back to in days to come. That said, it does obviously need to avoid merely slagging off the song/singer without careful use of reliable sources.-- 2100:. This is like having a Britney Spears profile (and it should be reoriented around Rebecca Black); the only significant difference is degree (BS is more famous and prolific than RB). When folks hear this song and think, "Who's Rebecca Black and what's the deal with this song?" they should be able to trust that Knowledge (XXG) will have the reliable, neutral assessment of this person. People want reliable information, and Knowledge (XXG) has a chance to give that information on the topics that people are interested in, including, for better or worse, this song and its heretofore unknown singer. 734:- BLP issues, and notability reasons. The fact that this song is 'notable' today doesn't mean it'll be notable tomorrow; we shouldn't have articles based on flash-in-the-pan internet memes, but those that demonstrate lasting notability, which this hasn't yet. And though it is well sourced, I'm just not comfortable with keeping what is essentially an attack article on a living 13-year-old. If it's going to be kept, as it seems it is, at the very least have the decency to remove her real name and image. 657:, this is not the case of "a kid in her room who made a video of herself intended for her friends"; it's a commercial venture, with an official website, for sale through iTunes and as a ringtone. The coverage is massive. I agree that BLP applies but I don't see any violations at this point. At this point it's just like any other Knowledge (XXG) article about a notable one-hit-wonder song--except that this one has a lot more reliable sources than such articles usually do. -- 704:— I also have contributed to this article (...please don't judge...) and I believe the other editors and I have done our best to keep it as neutral and sourced as possible. It isn't our fault when the coverage has been exceedingly (and mostly scathingly) negative. The sources that both meet Knowledge (XXG) source requirements and are not-so-negative are essentially backhanded compliments (see the 1731:, no reason not to mention her by name; she's a published singer, and should be treated no differently to, say, Lady Gaga. Her age is irrelevant; there have certainly been published singers younger than her (Willow Smith, for example) and all of them have articles. All negative comments in the article come from valid sources and are consistent with other articles' "Critical reception" sections. 1936:, Article provides a quick explanation for an otherwise vague Internet phenomenon. If deemed necessary, reduce/eliminate negativity toward the subject. But the need for sensitivity is reduced because the subject has put herself in fair territory for widespread and harsh artistic criticism by releasing her voice and image as a cultural work. She has agreed to become a public figure. 2083:. This is a very high profile song and has received millions of views over the course of a week. It's been posted on news sites and has been discussed extensively on radio and tv news. This is no different to other 'pop culture' fads that have articles on Knowledge (XXG). It is also a song available for purchase on the iTunes store since 14 March 2011. 606:- the article is on the song, not the person, shouldn't even be considered as an issue. And, as hillariously awful as the song is (in a fit of masochism, I actually forced myself to listen to the whole thing), the GNG has been met and exceeded in spades. Now if someone could supply me with brain bleach to remove the song from my head, I'd be grateful. 221:

become a distinctive piece of social commentary, as easily as it could fade away into obscurity. Either way it is too early to make a definitive decision. But, for anyone wanting to reference the Facebook/Tumblr/Youtube generation and its potential to spawn careers based, ironically, on defamation, this article could be absolutely critical.

544:

notable nonsense is notable. Using her name in this context is acceptable--she may have been ill-advised to record it, but that she did has been published by multiple responsible sources, and do no harm is irrelevant. (I have said otherwise with respect to the article about her--a title starting with

1084:

I don't mind keeping the bad reception, as long as it isn't the content of the entire article. You can't have an article which in essence says "X was a song by 13 year old Y, and everybody hated it. Here's the sources to prove it." Where's the actual description? Anything to do with reception should

201:

And, even if these points were accurately based on the sourcing, the negative focus makes it decidedly non-compliant with the encyclopedia's biographies of living persons policy. (Note that although the article is not a biography, the fact that it mentions the singer by name & that the singer's

989:

Normally i'd just stay away from discussions like this. However, this internet meme is one that seems to have caught onto the mainstream, with significant discussion in major publications such as Rolling Stone, TIME, CNN, and others. The amount of coverage is more than sufficient enough to meet our

867:

You're comparing apples and oranges. This is a legitimately professionally produced and distributed song (albeit awful), not a kid making a youtube video rant from her bedroom. If TMZ or like tabloids were the only sources, then your "branch office of TMZ" line might be valid, however the sources

682:

song articles. Contrary the the nom's statement, it looks very heavily sourced and I know this as I've been scrutinizing this page within minutes of its creation (I was the editor who first wikified and sourced this article) and written with neutrality; Most of what has been written about this song

519:

While I do understand the basis for the arguments regarding the deletion of the page, specifically the negative criticisms of a child (albeit sourced), I think it is an important topic to have due to the methods through which this video spread, notably social networking tools. In a matter of hours,

353:

While it is the specific performance by her that has drawn attention, and which the article is about, how notable is it that she is the singer? My view is that any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention. Normally, even if you agreed with

220:

The song and artist rose to repute/notoriety less than a week ago. This article has a lot more room for expansion, especially with regards to the "viral" themes. Keep in mind that this video has not been televised, and as far as I know, did not have radio coverage until after it's success. It could

929:

Providing a timely article on a pop culture phenomenon (yeah, we're gonna get 'rick-rolled' on this one for the next decade, at least) doesn't turn Knowledge (XXG) into TMZ -- as long as it remains sourced and factually-based. If I hadn't caught wind of this a few days ago, and wanted to know just

481:

In actuality, the sources are generally criticizing the song and video, not the singer. There are a couple of sporadic mentions of her facial expressions in the video, but there just hasn't been any reliable sources criticizing her talent, looks or singing. Sure the heavy use of autotuning is a

245:

I am not a big wiki writer/editor, but I wanted to find more info on this individual given the recent spread of her success and found my answers on this page. It is knowledge that should be shared. The name is misleading, though. This page should be more about the artist, less about the song.

906:

Actually the "origination or intent" of your example has a great deal to do with your argument. That ""stop hating" video was not a professionally produced and distributed video by a high publicity production company as this song and video was. There is nothing about this article to indicate a

373:

I honestly don't think that would work - it would be like having an article about the sayings of George W Bush but describing them as having been said by "a US President". I think it either has to be kept as sourced, or deleted - and if a consensus for deletion against policy could be found, for

276:

I'm very supportive of avoiding BLP violations, especially when it's a 13-year-old, but I don't see any here. Negative unsourced additions have been repeatedly reverted, and what's left seems well sourced and accurately reflects the sources - in fact, every single statement is sourced. Sources

1621:

Why would we delete an article that's about a very notable subject, that's well written, and has a ton of references from a ton of different reputable third-party sources? Ridiculous. Whoever nominated this for deletion should be stripped of the ability to do so in the future, because they

1995:. It needs to be broken out into a Rebecca Black BLP and an article about Friday separately. Of course the song/video is notable, and by extension so is Black. But it has to be carefully written to avoid POV issues, which I don't think is impacted by noting the general documented reactions. 1478:

I'm sorry, I almost always say delete the memes, but 10 million views on youtube? Plus the song is top 100 in iTunes, so as much as I want to kill the song with fire, we have to face the reality that although it's for all the wrong reasons, this song is going to at least be certified gold.

882:

If you read what I actually said, you'd see apples-apples. I don't care about the origination or intent of either video, that isn't relevant. The point is, both received coverage in reliable sources, but that isn't always enough to justify a Knowledge (XXG) article. There's a part of

848:

is a blip of internet meme idiocy, subject of which is a minor. That teenaged girl who made headlines last year for her "stop hating" or whatever video doesn't have an article here either, thankfully. Start acting more like an encyclopedia and less like a branch office of TMZ.

1299:

I just checked, this is number 77 on the top 100 downloadable songs in iTunes. Its popularity is still growing rapidly. The song has only been popular for about five days, but in the future there will definitely be more events concerning this song that will lead to expansion.

1327:

I came to this article this morning and considered nominating it for deletion as well because the article was so lacking. But in just one day, there has been a lot of improvement here. It's well sourced, there is cover art, and even covers already. Definitely notable.

320:. Her individual identity as the singer of the song is not integral to the article, and could be eluded to, such as by mentioning it was sung by a 13-year old girl, rather then using her name. While its not an ideal solution, it would seem like a good compromise. 715:). As stated earlier, this was the singer's attempt at a legitimate, publicly consumable song (uploaded onto YouTube, sold on iTunes as of yesterday); as such, there's nothing inherently excluding it from public discourse, including Knowledge (XXG). 1714:- per the fact that social media are a huge part of the world we live in today. Its not 1980 anymore, Knowledge (XXG) users has to become more aware of this. The song has charted within the Top100 so its a notable song for that reason too.-- 889:

it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial

354:

me on that, it wouldn't be justification for removing her name, but given the circumstances here, I think it would be reasonable to do in light of the extreme hostility involved. (though I don't think any specific policy would demand it)

162: 1564:

It's a single that's been professionally produced and released and has proved successful (albeit in not the right reasons). It's been discussed in a variety of accredited sources. It pretty much fits the definition of notability

2066:. The video's gotten millions of views in a month. Even weeks after the fact, people are still talking about it. I've seen it on forums, front pages on sites like Yahoo!, and the TV news. This is what Knowledge (XXG) is for. 795:

OK, this one's got way out of our hands, I don't think notability can be denied any more. The article's also more neutrally written than it was, and I was probably exaggerating the BLP issues in the first place. Switching to

589:. The subject meets the GNG, even if the phenomenon is based on the unconscionable exploitation of a child. That's a good reason for expunging the "studio" behind this claptrap from existence, not for ignoring the subject. 197:. ("Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard.") 930:

WTH was going on, I'd be clicking straight to WP for the scoop, and if there was no article to be found, it wouldn't be the "freakishly addictive" video making me say, "WTF!?", it would be the LACK of an article here. --

1085:

be put under "Critical Reception" header (or similar). If this cannot be arranged, I say it's best it's deleted for now. Why should we keep an article which is just an hurtful attack on an innocent 13 year old girl?! --

819:- Absolutely -- The song was intentionally put into the public space as part of a commercial venture (even if it started as a 'vanity project'), and the song and its artist are inseparably linked at this point - 769:, many of which are much more respectable than Knowledge (XXG) IMO, has withheld her name and image and both are synonymous with the song title and are even part of the iTunes single which is currently charting, 1350:

Is not intended to prevent all negative criticism of an individual. It should be kept and expanded. If there are positive reviews, then these need to be included. This meets notability, and should be kept.

2141:

The article was much improved by EchetusXe (great job :-), and I don't think that there are major BLP problems anymore at the moment. I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD nom, if anyone wants to close this one

1538:— Even if you think internet sensations have no place on Knowledge (XXG), this "song" (if you'd like to call it that...) has become a successful single. That in itself makes it notable enough for inclusion. 315:

The article should be edited to removed the references to her by name, all of which are very hostile, until such time as she qualifies as a notable person in her own right; and the references can satisfy

415:

I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but I think keeping an article that is a series of criticisms regarding a child simply because it can be sourced is completely unnecessary. --

1775:, because this article provides much insight for all users of Knowledge (XXG) to know more about "Friday" and Rebecca Black. Also, this is not a troll nor a flame, so it should not be deleted. 1179:

Thanks, I certainly hope we can write about some chart success in the future. Outside of Lady Gaga, Black's work is the most interesting thing to happen to pop music since the Pet Shop Boys.--

2176: 1830: 156: 1643:, "One reviewer went so far..". If you're going to include a bad comment at least explain who said it and where. On the subject of notability, a video with over ten million hits, and 549:. If we could delete the song from existence altogether, that might be a good option, and a case could be made for that being the humanitarian position, but the world is as it is. 1875: 1258:

She put the song out there, if people want to expand they should be allowed. There have been younger people than her and it's her fault for making some a viral piece of junk

123: 520:

the video spread rapidly, and as such, became one of the most talked about topics on Twitter and Tumblr, as sourced. That alone should keep it as a notable piece of media.

1582:

This article is (unfortunately) extremely culturally relevant. And it's well-cited. Doesn't make fun of the singer, but quotes critics who mock the songwriting and video.

482:

topic of humor, but that doesn't mean they're saying she's a bad singer, it could just be the production choice which is extremely prevalent currently in music industry. --

1966:

I know I haven't been around for a while, but last time I looked, if something had so much coverage it immediately becomes notable. Therefore, this is perfectly notable.

1840: 1440:

The video has over 10.3 million views on YouTube at the moment and countless parodies. At this point, it's notability is very solid and isn't going away anytime soon.

1198:

Brilliant reframe on the article, 'EX'; the views expressed in 'Rolling Stone' & 'EW' were sorely missing, and place the song's importance in a better context. --

277:

include Time, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily Times, Forbes. (Please also note there is also a deletion review of a related article happening at

96: 91: 451:

Which is what it would need to be. My delete !vote is IAR through and through - I understand the keep votes are supported by current notability guidelines, but I

100: 650: 278: 1854: 2046:- like a lot of pop-culture fads, says more about the pathetic condition of our culture than about the subject, that such a thing should be clearly notable. -- 83: 1815: 1821: 1879: 1857: 1245: 1161:

Nice work, it's much better now - and who knows, with the way it's going maybe we'll soon be able to add a bit about its chart positions too ;-) --

1844: 339:

But it's only her actual performance of it that makes it notable - that's what all the well-sourced stories are about, not just about the song. --

1827: 177: 1834: 1107: 1066: 1052: 144: 2107: 1280: 1265: 573: 228: 1812: 749: 1480: 1241: 1222: 709: 253: 1871: 1611: 1288: 1111: 1074: 1035: 977: 1639:

I'd like some of the more grating phrases changed. Such as "overwhelmingly bad lyrics, singing and video content" in the intro, or in

1603: 1589: 1027: 1014: 527: 503: 17: 1675: 2197:

Thanks Cordelia, and love the thinking there Zebedee. Who said bureaucracies cannot come to touching and appropriate conclusions?--

1794: 138: 87: 1824: 1428: 594: 1952: 973: 2227: 2207: 2191: 2165: 2151: 2133: 2115: 2092: 2075: 2058: 2038: 2021: 2004: 1983: 1956: 1928: 1909: 1891: 1803: 1763: 1740: 1723: 1706: 1679: 1631: 1597: 1574: 1556: 1524: 1510: 1488: 1470: 1449: 1432: 1412: 1395: 1370: 1339: 1319: 1273: 1249: 1230: 1207: 1189: 1170: 1156: 1130: 1094: 1060: 1022: 1001: 960: 939: 920: 901: 877: 858: 828: 809: 790: 760: 743: 724: 696: 666: 637: 615: 598: 581: 560: 535: 511: 491: 468: 446: 428: 401: 383: 368: 348: 334: 307: 290: 261: 236: 211: 134: 65: 53: 2161: 1387: 1166: 756: 442: 397: 379: 344: 286: 1790: 2242: 1837: 1013:

and got bad critical reaction. In wikipedia there are movies with bad critical reception but we're not deleting these.

907:

violation of the policy of BLP nor the quote you choose from it as, per WP:BLP, any negative content has been cited by

433:

Although I !voted to keep it, I wouldn't object if a humanitarian case could be made for deletion - but it would be an

184: 36: 79: 71: 2147: 1550: 590: 207: 1850: 1045:

Many sources have already discussed this artist and the song. I see nothing wrong with informing people of this.

392:" - it's the fact that she's such a bad singer that even auto-tune can't save it that has made it such a hit. -- 2241:

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

2157: 1867: 1818: 1162: 1103: 1070: 1056: 752: 577: 438: 393: 375: 340: 282: 35:

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

2111: 1847: 1284: 1269: 684: 232: 1484: 1226: 150: 1607: 1593: 1031: 1018: 892:", that is unfortunately routinely ignored when overzealous editors create articles based on recent events. 531: 507: 257: 202:

name redirects to the article makes it especially essential that the article is compliant with BLP policy).

2103: 1940: 1663: 1585: 1261: 1218: 1048: 800:(though I would still say it should be re-examined at a later date to see if notability is truly lasting). 523: 249: 224: 2017: 1904: 1758: 1520: 1466: 1445: 1408: 1099: 996: 194: 2143: 2071: 1671: 1391: 1378:

So much media attention here – foolish to call it non-notable at this point, whether we like it or not.

1365: 969: 956: 683:

has been negative. If there has been a positive review of this song, by all means put it in. We might

633: 611: 390:

any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention

203: 1863: 1539: 1860: 2053: 2000: 1969: 1783: 1627: 1311: 1090: 1086: 845: 546: 2201: 1944: 1883: 1183: 1150: 662: 545:

her name would be undue prominence at this point.). the guiding rule is well stated in the essay ,

170: 2030: 1655:

pop song in New Zealand right now. The song Friday is probably more notable than Rebecca Black or

1199: 931: 841: 820: 774: 1948: 1887: 1570: 1506: 1420:

Obviously passes all notability tests easily, and it appropriately goes by what the sources say.

916: 873: 805: 786: 739: 692: 487: 364: 330: 303: 199:

Many of the points in this article do not even seem to be accurately based on the cited sources.

1458: 193:

This article falls afoul of policy on biographies on living persons, and should be deleted per

2187: 2034: 2013: 1924: 1899: 1753: 1656: 1516: 1462: 1441: 1404: 1383: 1203: 1138:- I could understand the point of 'it encourages people to hate a child' for articles such as 991: 935: 824: 29:

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

1652: 49: 2088: 2067: 1719: 1667: 1498: 1352: 720: 629: 607: 61: 1347: 884: 837: 778: 675: 625: 434: 317: 2223:; problems described above regarding unsourced criticism etc seem to have been addressed. 2129: 2047: 1996: 1776: 1736: 1623: 1126: 466: 426: 908: 766: 2224: 2198: 1749: 1423: 1302: 1180: 1147: 1139: 897: 854: 658: 2220: 1690: 1566: 1502: 1403:

Every other horrible pop song gets a wikipedia page...this one deserves a page too.

1143: 965: 952: 912: 869: 801: 782: 735: 688: 654: 556: 483: 355: 321: 299: 777:

and this is not a case for an exception as everything here is very well sourced per

2183: 1920: 1379: 117: 2084: 1715: 716: 57: 1919:. This article is not different to all the other viral things on the internet. 2125: 1732: 1122: 456: 416: 1648: 1010: 893: 850: 770: 455:

cannot argue to keep any article that perpetuates the mocking of a child. --

572:. And, like the person above me said, notable nonsense is still notable.-- 1497:

Can you please explain how you "almost always say delete the memes" when

551: 1993:

This is not a BLP; as currently titled, this is an article about a song

568:- This song has been discussed in countless notable sources, including 868:

are not TMZ or other tabloids and are mostly very prestigious ones. --

569: 1647:

many media sources I think is worth keeping. Not to mention number

1752:

would be another example of a child singer we have an article on.

2235:

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

279:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Rebecca Black

1798: 748:

But she's using her real name and that image to sell it - see

52:

really applies here so I think it is best to close this now. (

1461:

as it's been criticized by media and has gone viral online.

674:- This is an extremely high profile song, arguably passing 1898:

Um... ._. Wow. That must have taken a long time to do.

113: 109: 105: 169: 2177:

list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions

2156:Oh no, it shouldn't be closed until.... Friday! -- 1515:It looks like they may have just forgot to log in. 183: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2245:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1121:. Absurd at this point to deny the notability. 765:The problem with that request is absolutely no 687:, but that is not a criteria for deletion. -- 8: 2175:Note: This debate has been included in the 1009:This song currently 69th in download chart. 374:humanitarian reasons, I wouldn't object. -- 2174: 1011:http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/songs/ 1622:obviously have no judgement whatsoever. 1240:Meets criteria sets forth in WP:GNG. -- 887:policy (note that; policy) that reads " 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 1501:shows no other AfDs before this?-- 628:shouldn't be considered an issue. 388:Oh, and I strongly disagree with " 24: 298:as per User:Boing! said Zebedee. 775:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored 678:easier and sourced better than 1242:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1: 2044:Reluctant and disgusted keep 649:. As Oakshade noted in the 1459:music notability guidelines 708:article already listed, or 80:Friday (Rebecca Black song) 72:Friday (Rebecca Black song) 2262: 2228:23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2208:23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2192:23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2166:22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2152:22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2134:22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2116:22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2093:21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2076:21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2059:20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2039:18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2022:18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 2005:17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1984:16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1957:15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1929:11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1910:11:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1892:11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1804:10:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1764:10:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1741:10:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1724:09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1707:08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1680:08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1632:06:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1598:06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1575:04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1557:04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1525:04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1511:04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1489:04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1471:03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1450:03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1433:03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1413:03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1396:02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1371:02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1340:02:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1320:01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1274:23:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1250:23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1231:23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1208:01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1190:01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1171:00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1157:23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1131:23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1095:22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1061:22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1023:22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 1002:22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 961:22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 940:01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 921:22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 902:22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 878:22:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 859:21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 829:21:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 810:16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 791:02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 761:22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 744:21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 725:21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 697:20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 667:20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 638:20:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 616:20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 599:20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 582:20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 561:20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 536:20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 512:19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 492:05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 469:22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 447:20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 429:19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 402:20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 384:20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 369:20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 349:19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 335:19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 308:19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 291:19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 262:18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 237:18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 212:19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 66:23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 990:standards of notability. 844:action if need be. This 2238:Please do not modify it. 624:sorry, that should read 48:. I am pretty sure that 32:Please do not modify it. 2124:. Notable and peculiar. 1653:the 10th best selling 1612:few or no other edits 1289:few or no other edits 1215:this song is awful. 1112:few or no other edits 1075:few or no other edits 1036:few or no other edits 978:few or no other edits 591:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1649:69 on itunes top 100 1614:outside this topic. 1291:outside this topic. 1114:outside this topic. 1077:outside this topic. 1038:outside this topic. 980:outside this topic. 712:The Arizona Republic 2158:Boing! said Zebedee 1163:Boing! said Zebedee 753:Boing! said Zebedee 439:Boing! said Zebedee 394:Boing! said Zebedee 376:Boing! said Zebedee 341:Boing! said Zebedee 283:Boing! said Zebedee 1704: 1641:critical reception 771:currently up at 69 44:The result was 2194: 2180: 2106:comment added by 2035:User talk:Rbs7878 1982: 1960: 1943:comment added by 1691: 1683: 1666:comment added by 1657:Ark Music Factory 1615: 1588:comment added by 1499:your edit history 1394: 1338: 1292: 1264:comment added by 1221:comment added by 1115: 1078: 1051:comment added by 1039: 981: 526:comment added by 361: 327: 252:comment added by 227:comment added by 54:non-admin closure 2253: 2240: 2181: 2144:CordeliaNaismith 2122:Keep and Improve 2118: 2056: 2050: 1981: 1979: 1974: 1967: 1959: 1937: 1907: 1902: 1802: 1786: 1781: 1761: 1756: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1682: 1660: 1601: 1600: 1553: 1547: 1543: 1382: 1368: 1362: 1357: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1305: 1278: 1276: 1233: 1097: 1064: 1063: 1025: 999: 994: 963: 909:reliable sources 846:momentary hoopla 538: 464: 424: 357: 323: 264: 239: 204:CordeliaNaismith 188: 187: 173: 121: 103: 58:Kevin Rutherford 34: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2243:deletion review 2236: 2101: 2054: 2048: 1975: 1970: 1968: 1938: 1905: 1900: 1801: 1788: 1784: 1777: 1759: 1754: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1661: 1637:Edit & Keep 1583: 1551: 1545: 1541: 1431: 1366: 1358: 1353: 1334: 1331: 1317: 1303: 1259: 1256:Keep and expand 1216: 1136:Keep and expand 1100:User:CameronLee 1067:205.133.192.129 1053:205.133.192.129 1046: 997: 992: 767:reliable source 710:this review by 521: 462: 422: 360: 326: 247: 222: 218:Keep and expand 130: 94: 78: 75: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2259: 2257: 2248: 2247: 2231: 2230: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2136: 2119: 2108:171.66.104.128 2095: 2078: 2061: 2041: 2024: 2007: 1991:To emphasize: 1986: 1961: 1931: 1913: 1912: 1895: 1894: 1806: 1789: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1750:Jackie Evancho 1744: 1743: 1726: 1709: 1684: 1634: 1616: 1577: 1559: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1492: 1491: 1473: 1452: 1435: 1427: 1415: 1398: 1373: 1342: 1322: 1309: 1281:67.204.211.132 1266:67.204.211.132 1253: 1252: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1174: 1173: 1140:Nazi Pop Twins 1133: 1116: 1079: 1040: 1004: 983: 982: 945: 944: 943: 942: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 862: 861: 831: 814: 813: 812: 793: 763: 727: 699: 669: 643: 642: 641: 640: 619: 618: 601: 584: 574:76.106.233.222 563: 539: 514: 497: 496: 495: 494: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 386: 358: 324: 310: 293: 271: 265: 240: 229:87.114.182.182 191: 190: 127: 74: 69: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2258: 2246: 2244: 2239: 2233: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2099: 2096: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2051: 2045: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989:Edit and Move 1987: 1985: 1980: 1978: 1973: 1965: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1935: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1903: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1782: 1780: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1765: 1762: 1757: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1581: 1578: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1548: 1544: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481:76.102.155.25 1477: 1474: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1425: 1419: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1369: 1363: 1361: 1356: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1307: 1306: 1298: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1257: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223:90.213.53.122 1220: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1191: 1188: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144:Prussian Blue 1141: 1137: 1134: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1003: 1000: 995: 988: 985: 984: 979: 975: 971: 967: 962: 958: 954: 950: 947: 946: 941: 937: 933: 928: 922: 918: 914: 910: 905: 904: 903: 899: 895: 891: 886: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 866: 865: 864: 863: 860: 856: 852: 847: 843: 840:or invoke an 839: 835: 832: 830: 826: 822: 818: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 794: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 762: 758: 754: 750: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 732: 728: 726: 722: 718: 714: 713: 707: 706:Rolling Stone 703: 700: 698: 694: 690: 686: 681: 677: 673: 670: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655:Rebecca Black 652: 648: 645: 644: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 617: 613: 609: 605: 602: 600: 596: 592: 588: 585: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 564: 562: 558: 554: 553: 548: 543: 540: 537: 533: 529: 525: 518: 515: 513: 509: 505: 502: 499: 498: 493: 489: 485: 480: 479: 478: 477: 470: 467: 465: 461: 460: 454: 450: 449: 448: 444: 440: 436: 432: 431: 430: 427: 425: 421: 420: 414: 411: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 385: 381: 377: 372: 371: 370: 366: 362: 352: 351: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 319: 314: 311: 309: 305: 301: 297: 294: 292: 288: 284: 280: 275: 272: 269: 266: 263: 259: 255: 254:65.204.229.11 251: 244: 241: 238: 234: 230: 226: 219: 216: 215: 214: 213: 209: 205: 200: 196: 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: 77: 76: 73: 70: 68: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2237: 2234: 2216: 2202: 2138: 2121: 2097: 2080: 2063: 2043: 2031:User:Rbs7878 2026: 2014:Aaadddaaammm 2009: 1992: 1988: 1976: 1971: 1963: 1939:— Preceding 1933: 1916: 1808: 1778: 1772: 1728: 1711: 1686: 1662:— Preceding 1644: 1640: 1636: 1618: 1604:96.52.240.18 1590:96.52.240.18 1579: 1561: 1540: 1535: 1517:Illinois2011 1475: 1463:Andrewlp1991 1457:as it meets 1454: 1442:Illinois2011 1437: 1421: 1417: 1405:Stromcarlson 1400: 1375: 1359: 1354: 1344: 1330: 1324: 1312: 1310: 1301: 1296: 1255: 1254: 1237: 1214: 1184: 1151: 1135: 1118: 1081: 1042: 1028:78.160.27.47 1015:78.160.27.47 1006: 986: 948: 888: 833: 816: 797: 730: 729: 711: 705: 701: 679: 671: 646: 603: 586: 565: 550: 541: 528:76.78.26.125 516: 504:108.71.52.30 500: 458: 457: 452: 437:decision -- 418: 417: 412: 389: 312: 295: 273: 267: 242: 217: 198: 195:WP:BLPDELETE 192: 180: 174: 166: 159: 153: 147: 141: 131: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2102:—Preceding 2068:Rockhead126 2049:Orange Mike 1668:Danthemango 1610:) has made 1584:—Preceding 1542:Master& 1536:Strong keep 1304:Ŵïllî§ï$ 2? 1287:) has made 1260:—Preceding 1217:—Preceding 1110:) has made 1082:Edit/Delete 1073:) has made 1047:—Preceding 1034:) has made 976:) has made 685:not like it 630:Umbralcorax 608:Umbralcorax 522:—Preceding 270:Its awesome 248:—Preceding 223:—Preceding 157:free images 46:speedy keep 2225:Una Laguna 1624:Rockypedia 1087:CameronLee 731:IAR Delete 547:WP:OSTRICH 453:personally 2219:- passes 2184:• Gene93k 1841:Wednesday 1813:Yesterday 1424:Torchiest 890:judgment. 842:WP:OFFICE 659:Arxiloxos 459:Jezebel's 419:Jezebel's 2142:early... 2104:unsigned 1953:contribs 1945:Btimlake 1941:unsigned 1884:AfD hero 1851:Thursday 1676:contribs 1664:unsigned 1586:unsigned 1567:Dtnoip28 1503:Oakshade 1388:contribs 1262:unsigned 1219:unsigned 1108:contribs 1049:unsigned 974:contribs 966:Jannefoo 953:Jannefoo 913:Oakshade 870:Oakshade 802:Robofish 783:Oakshade 736:Robofish 689:Oakshade 524:unsigned 484:Oakshade 300:WereWolf 250:unsigned 225:unsigned 124:View log 2199:Echetus 2139:Comment 1921:Hohohob 1831:notable 1779:Blackie 1651:, even 1380:Goyston 1200:Chachap 1181:Echetus 1148:Echetus 932:Chachap 821:Chachap 163:WP refs 151:scholar 97:protect 92:history 50:WP:SNOW 1901:Silver 1864:Friday 1828:wasn't 1816:people 1755:Silver 1716:BabbaQ 1546:Expert 1360:mosler 1348:WP:BLP 993:Silver 885:WP:BLP 838:WP:IAR 834:Delete 779:WP:BLP 676:WP:GNG 626:WP:BLP 570:Yahoo! 413:Delete 318:WP:BLP 135:Google 101:delete 2126:TjoeC 1972:DeMoN 1906:seren 1861:comes 1855:After 1845:Today 1760:seren 1733:CNash 1429:edits 1332:~ ~ 1123:BLGM7 998:seren 557:talk 463:Ponyo 423:Ponyo 356:Monty 322:Monty 281:) -- 178:JSTOR 139:books 118:views 110:watch 106:links 16:< 2221:WP:N 2217:Keep 2188:talk 2162:talk 2148:talk 2130:talk 2112:talk 2098:Keep 2089:talk 2085:Matt 2081:Keep 2072:talk 2064:Keep 2055:Talk 2027:Keep 2018:talk 2010:Keep 2001:talk 1977:2009 1964:Keep 1949:talk 1934:Keep 1925:talk 1917:Keep 1888:talk 1858:that 1835:That 1825:song 1822:this 1819:said 1809:Keep 1773:Keep 1737:talk 1729:Keep 1720:talk 1712:Keep 1687:Keep 1672:talk 1645:this 1628:talk 1619:Keep 1608:talk 1594:talk 1580:Keep 1571:talk 1565:now. 1562:Keep 1552:Talk 1521:talk 1507:talk 1485:talk 1476:Keep 1467:talk 1455:Keep 1446:talk 1438:Keep 1418:Keep 1409:talk 1401:Keep 1392:play 1384:talk 1376:Keep 1345:Keep 1325:Keep 1313:Sign 1297:Keep 1285:talk 1270:talk 1246:talk 1238:Keep 1227:talk 1204:talk 1167:talk 1127:talk 1119:Keep 1104:talk 1091:talk 1071:talk 1057:talk 1043:Keep 1032:talk 1019:talk 1007:Keep 987:Keep 970:talk 957:talk 951:. -- 949:Keep 936:talk 917:talk 911:. -- 898:talk 894:Tarc 874:talk 855:talk 851:Tarc 825:talk 817:Keep 806:talk 798:Keep 787:talk 781:. -- 757:talk 740:talk 721:talk 702:Keep 693:talk 680:most 672:Keep 663:talk 653:for 647:Keep 634:talk 612:talk 604:Keep 595:talk 587:Keep 578:talk 566:Keep 542:Keep 532:talk 517:Keep 508:talk 501:Keep 488:talk 443:talk 398:talk 380:talk 365:talk 345:talk 331:talk 313:Edit 304:talk 296:Keep 287:talk 274:Keep 268:Keep 258:talk 243:Keep 233:talk 208:talk 171:FENS 145:news 114:logs 88:talk 84:edit 62:talk 2182:-- 2052:| 1880:Fun 1876:Fun 1872:Fun 1868:Fun 1838:was 1785:Dog 1702:ski 1696:orr 1659:. 1335:: ~ 1142:or 773:. 751:-- 717:SKS 651:DRV 552:DGG 435:IAR 359:845 325:845 185:TWL 122:– ( 2190:) 2179:. 2164:) 2150:) 2132:) 2114:) 2091:) 2074:) 2037:) 2029:. 2020:) 2012:. 2003:) 1955:) 1951:• 1927:) 1890:) 1882:. 1878:. 1874:. 1870:. 1866:. 1853:. 1848:is 1843:. 1833:. 1811:. 1739:) 1722:) 1678:) 1674:• 1630:) 1602:— 1596:) 1573:) 1555:) 1523:) 1509:) 1487:) 1469:) 1448:) 1411:) 1390:, 1386:, 1318:) 1308:(/ 1279:— 1272:) 1248:) 1229:) 1206:) 1169:) 1129:) 1106:• 1098:— 1093:) 1065:— 1059:) 1026:— 1021:) 972:• 964:— 959:) 938:) 919:) 900:) 876:) 857:) 836:- 827:) 808:) 789:) 759:) 742:) 723:) 695:) 665:) 636:) 614:) 597:) 580:) 559:) 534:) 510:) 490:) 445:) 400:) 382:) 367:) 347:) 333:) 306:) 289:) 260:) 235:) 210:) 165:) 116:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 64:) 56:) 2205:e 2203:X 2186:( 2160:( 2146:( 2128:( 2110:( 2087:( 2070:( 2033:( 2016:( 1999:( 1997:x 1947:( 1923:( 1886:( 1799:d 1797:/ 1795:c 1793:/ 1791:w 1735:( 1718:( 1699:u 1693:K 1670:( 1626:( 1606:( 1592:( 1569:( 1549:( 1519:( 1505:( 1483:( 1465:( 1444:( 1422:— 1407:( 1367:● 1364:| 1355:R 1283:( 1277:{ 1268:( 1244:( 1225:( 1202:( 1187:e 1185:X 1165:( 1154:e 1152:X 1125:( 1102:( 1089:( 1069:( 1055:( 1030:( 1017:( 968:( 955:( 934:( 915:( 896:( 872:( 853:( 823:( 804:( 785:( 755:( 738:( 719:( 691:( 661:( 632:( 610:( 593:( 576:( 555:( 530:( 506:( 486:( 441:( 396:( 378:( 363:( 343:( 329:( 302:( 285:( 256:( 231:( 206:( 189:) 181:· 175:· 167:· 160:· 154:· 148:· 142:· 137:( 129:( 126:) 120:) 82:( 60:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Friday (Rebecca Black song) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index