1193:"Notability aside", meaning that other than needing notability (charting). This guideline is directly referring to stub articles that have minimal charting and are better off being merged into a parent article. Lets not pick parts of a sentence out of a guideline and read the whole thing: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is not referring to an non-charting song, this is referring to a charted and notable song that does not have enough information. -
1069:). Looking at the sources in the article, I see only one that is primarily about this song and the GNG requires multiple sources. I feel bad for sticking with this line when it's clear that people have put a lot of effort into the article, but the fact is that it does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (NSONGS or GNG). We cannot apply IAR (as is suggested below) just because people have put time into the article – that would open us up to keeping every article where the creator has put a lot of effort in – we have notability guidelines for a reason.
214:– YET ANOTHER pointless article. Seriously, when will this end? Sure, it is a well-written article, but it does not need the main criteria for song articles: charting and/or awards. It was performed live, and some critics talked about it (mostly as a part of the album review). That does not warrant for its own article. I really wish users would stop making articles just for the hell of it, and to have each song on an particular album have its own article like its an accomplishment or something. —
319:. I'm sorry, but people need to sort out their fucking priorities. There are so many article with about 2 sentences in them that nobody gives a shit about when they should nominate those for AfD instead, NOT well written and notable articles like this. I'm so pissed of people constantly having a go at everything I do and dragging things down for me. There is, once again, no reason to delete this article. There is actually more information than
1890:(those performances have attracted lots of coverage because they have been deemed controversial, etc). The song is quite notable. Tons of verifiable material, for crying out loud. Material that is separate - the comment that most of the article's information comes from the album's booklet is erroneous and egregious. This nomination actually seems pretty ridiculous given all the coverage of this song, especially its live performances!--
323:, yet Raining Men gets to stay because it was a single. And if Fading is allowed to be kept, then there is no reason why this one can't be too, and I'm pretty sure it will be, which will screw up the GAN and will be quick failed for not being stable, just like Fading was. Great, thanks a lot. And I don't care that I'm swearing here, I speak my mind and how I feel.
1234:? Were are not discussing those articles we are discussing this one. Go delete them yourself. That's fine you can vote however you wish, it doesn't mean it will be counted seeing as you've just been out argued and your vote now holds no logical reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Nothing further because this comment is rhetorical? -
235:
Before i decide what to vote, i have a few questions / suggestions. I think this song was used in an Armani Jeans add, right? I think
Rihanna went to Brazil to shoot a video for this, right? If we have sources proving these two + the cancelled release (which is already there), this will reinforce the
1064:
is never a good argument at AfDs and for songs like "S&M", it is easy to find sources that are solely about that song – not so for this article. I was left a note on my talk page about having another look at this, but I still think a merge would be the right outcome (though I think it would be a
752:
That's what happens when you muddle your arguments with all sorts of irrelevent information (telling how "pissed" you are, swearing, carrying on about how hard your worked on the article,etc.) If you'd concentrate your argument on policy, and less of all that, people would probably be more likely to
557:
per Status and
Lakeshake. And saying that it has "more information" than Raining Men (song) is irrelevant and untrue. Raining Men was a single, it charted and there is at least some background info related to the song. Skin's background info is basically just what's written in the booklet. Also, the
1033:
I don't understand why people don't get that the song was not released as a single, thus, it will not have dedicated reviews just for the song like other's would. Therefore, the only commentaries are from the album reviews, just like What's My Name? does, just like S&M does, just like Man Down
1014:
to the album article. The article is well-sourced, but unfortunately none of the sources in the article at the moment actually cover the song in significant detail – they are either articles on the album as a whole or reviews of her live shows – none are specifically about the song. The album is a
576:
article as well as it's singles articles. And I've only ever had one other article I created be AfD, even though it passed notability in the first place. I just think that instead of focusing on this well written and informational article that certain people should look out for other article which
1306:
Also, the use in a popular commercial and the controversy surrounding the sexual performances makes the lack of chart position quite irrelevant. An argument stating that this detailed and thoroughly sourced article should be deleted because it didn't scrape the top 100 downloads in Outer
Mongolia
693:
is a guideline. « Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ». I repeat what I said : Threshold for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, with
1646:
But the article does not say "Rihanna did something controversial (Daily Mail source)", it says "When critically reviewing one of the performances of Skin, the Daily Mail assessed that her behaviour was controversial (Daily Mail source)". If it was the former, I'd agree with you. But it's not.
1348:
works best as an exclusion criteria: without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it. Using it as a leveling tool to set a common expectation of what songs get articles works well, and making exceptions to it should be a rare occurrence.
1178:
WP:NSONGS says that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article has enough
476:
Comments like "GNG is irrelevant" are completely incorrect. GNG trumps the SNGs (of which NSONGS is one) every day of the week. The purpose of the SNGs is to give an indication of what articles will probably be notable (i.e. meet the GNG), not to preclude us having articles on topics that have
839:
The points made in the previous paragraph are mostly irrelevant. Also, consensus is everything. If they say delete, sorry. Also, I don't really see why those redirects were needed in the first place before they charted, but I will leave that alone considering their current status.
1602:
This is not a biography of a living person. The Daily Mail is an extremely prominent
British newspaper and it has commented on the sexual nature of a musical performance. Whether it has been sued or not is neither here nor there, as no legal action has been taken in this case.
1428:
has one for nearly every one too. And I'm not creating them for the sake of it, if I was then I would have made one for
Complicated. Skin has a lot of info about it, has been used in a advertising campaign and has been performed live, which attracted a lot of controversy. If
1089:? I very rarely agree with merges, just because of how much info gets lost. And I disagree about the reviews comment. It doesn't matter if Skin got it's reviews by way of album reviews, it's still reviews about the song, and a lot of people commented on the song, thus it
1371:, what's wrong with that? And dismissing this as a "fan-page" is neither accurate or productive. "There's nothing about this song that is so special" - use in a popular advertising campaign and a notable controversy over its performances seems pretty special to me.
1397:
expresses the community expectation of when that separate article will actually be created, and I think it's a reasonable one. Having articles about every album track simply causes name-space collisions and indexing problems without actually adding substantive
931:
Explaining how it satisfies notability is a valid argument. Providing extra sources is a good approach. Saying stuff like "I worked hard and spent time on this" or "this is hard work/it'd be hard to recreate" are not relevant reasons to keep an article.
815:
like it originally was before I wrote it. Because I spent a lot of time on this, and if any info comes up in the future, it would be very frustrating to have to write it again. I think this is reasonable. (Fading was originally a re-direct, and
267:
unless the song is released as a single. Given the artist, if it is released it will chart in which case it can be created. I wouldn't be too upset if it was kept given that it is well written and it would encourage the author to keep writing.
1215:
should be deleted because they didn't chart. And I just took Joplin as an example. There are also million other articles about songs that didn't chart. Why don't you nominate them for deleting? I'm still voting that this should be kept.
1287:
is a guideline and should be treated as such; "lease note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept".
152:
694:
secondary sources, not charts and singles. It means that songs with charts and singles can be deleted if there's no secondary sources, and conversely a song tithout charts and single, with secondary sources, can be kept.
558:
opening sentence in the
Background section about Rihanna's previous tour and some movie she appears in is in no way relevant to the song. And Calvin, it appears that you always take these delete proposals too personally.
1625:). The fact that the article is about a song doesn't change this. You're citing a notoriously unreliable tabloid newspaper as a source for a claim that a living person did something controversial in a concert. BLP is
1930:. I always nominate music-related articles for deletion as they have not charted and are completely non-notable, but in this case the song has received widespead coverage (see reference list), therefore it passes
1833:
Reviews in passing have nothing to do with it. It's still a review of the song. It doesn't matter if it is a single review or part of an album review, it's still a review. Why do people fail to understand this.
1541:
Since I added this comment some sources about performances of the song which have attracted controversy have been added. Again Skin is only mentioned in passing and I would suggest that this content be added to
494:
Why would we use GNG to determine something when we have a specific guideline for dealing with song articles that are based upon
Notability (GNG). The purpose of NSONG is to further elaborate and expand upon
811:
in the same edit. It was only this month that I wrote the article. I don't think the article should be deleted, regardless of the consensus. I think it should either be kept, or re-directed back to
672:
to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is enough verifiable material to be notable.
601:
1056:
Is this reply specifically to my comment, Calvin? I'll assume it as and answer your question. It is perfectly acceptable to reference album reviews in song articles, but the GNG requires
1524:
probably notable, which isn't the same thing at all. However the sources cited in this article all mention the song in passing while discussing the album so we ought to do the same.
1909:
Live performances do not help establish notability. Musical acts play non-singles, non-notable songs all the time live, but that doesn't make them notable (in the wikipedia sense.)
1328:
The article is very detailed and It looks as if the users editing this article took alot of time editing it. It has alot of sources, deleting and/or merging it would be pointless.
113:
1700:"You may wish to change, alter or expand your argument in light of these developments" - I didn't ask you to comment, I just said that you may want to in light of recent changes.
146:
1857:
1252:
I don't want to argue with you. After all you have the rules on your side but this is my opinion and I'm telling it here. Btw I expanded the article and now it has 21 sources.
458:- NSONG is clear, GNG is irrelevant and is not an exception to NSONG. No charts? No page. Its as simple as that with very few exceptions - this however, is not an exception. -
577:
have about 2 lines on them, yet no one seems to care about that. And of course I'm going to defend an article I created that I spent hours and hours researching and writing!
1126:. I totally agree with Calvin. Instead of nominating this for deletion why don't you look in those billion articles that only have one sentence? Maybe the song doesn't pass
1038:
reviews. And the Live performance section is specifically about the controversial performing of Skin, so I don't really get your point about it not being about the song.
1852:
And even if some of the references do mention the song in passing, none of these are trivial mentions and there are other sources that focus on the song alone (such as
503:
established as one of a song article's requirements. Thus my original statement, GNG is not relevant when we have specific rules and guidelines for what to do. -
1463:
thinks that the article should be deleted because of name-space collisions and indexing problems? Seems a bit trivial in the grand scheme of things, doesn't it?
348:
buddy. "Raining Men" was a SINGLE and CHARTED. That's the criteria. And since when is speaking your mind talking like a pirate? I suggest you cool your jets. —
1811:
That's great...but..the problem was never lack of sources. It was that it failed NSONGS, and that many of the sources mentioned the song more in passing...
1855:
236:
existence of this article on
Knowledge (XXG). If not i still have to say that this article is well written. First, answer my queries, then i will decide.
753:
listen to you. But as it is, even if they do listen to you, judging by the comments at this AFD, there are 2 legitimate interpretation of the situation.
1015:
pretty decent article, so I'm not sure if it needs the info that's currently in this article, but it's at least worth a redirect (redirects are cheap).
1585:
It shouldn't. That publication has repeatedly been sued for libel and should not be cited as a source for anything at all concerning a living person.
1416:
No one can help that 10 out of 11 tracks have an article. That's what happens when 7 songs are released as singles and two others chart. Beyonce's
499:
with specific requirements (the song charting), just like there are specific guidelines on books, movies, people, ect ect.. The song's charting is
1621:
This is a biography of a living person according to
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Any content about living people, anywhere, falls under the BLP policy
1152:; if you want the article to stay you must use guidelines and policies to express why an article that fails consensus and rules should be kept. -
86:
81:
90:
73:
1283:= A detailed and reliably sourced article that offers full coverage that would be bulky and excessive in a discography or album article.
807:
I'd like to make a point which I think everyone is unaware of. This article was created by an editor in November 2010 and re-directed to
1938:("a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article").
167:
17:
134:
1389:] is a minimal inclusion criteria: passing it doesn't guarantee inclusion of an article, it is the minimum requirement for being
1367:"without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it". But if they pass the
1567:
Regardless of your views on the publication, the Daily Mail passed comment on Rihanna's performance and the article cites that.
1546:. I don't think that discussions of the advert belong in this article. Incidentally I would strongly discourage the use of the
404:
But it's still here. Keep was a majority rule anyway, and has everything for it to pass notability, as it has also charted.
1060:, not just passing mentions in articles that are not primarily about the song. You bring up a bunch of other articles, but
1516:
into the article on the album. NSONGS doesn't say that songs which didn't chart aren't notable, it says that songs which
626:
per Calvin. Threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles.
426:
128:
655:
395:
358:
273:
247:
224:
1962:
997:, but it appears from the article to have been a notable song. If needed, a smerge back to the CD would be applicable.
36:
1790:
124:
817:
1947:
1920:
1904:
1868:
1847:
1822:
1806:
1709:
1691:
1656:
1637:
1612:
1593:
1576:
1558:
1532:
1496:
1472:
1450:
1407:
1380:
1358:
1337:
1316:
1297:
1261:
1247:
1225:
1206:
1188:
1165:
1139:
1110:
1078:
1051:
1024:
1006:
961:
943:
918:
900:
880:
858:
833:
801:
764:
723:
703:
685:
659:
635:
615:
590:
567:
547:
516:
486:
471:
440:
417:
399:
380:
362:
336:
297:
277:
257:
228:
205:
55:
1886:- The song is the music in an Armani Jeans campaign ad and Rihanna performs this song regularly as a part of the
1257:
1221:
1184:
1135:
1785:, proves that this song is more than your usual album-track-redirect-to-the-parent-article-fodder. I think that
1961:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
563:
243:
174:
77:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1786:
994:
1241:
1200:
1159:
510:
465:
1758:
1734:
1034:
does. Just because this is a song and not a single, doesn't mean album reviews are not acceptable. They are
848:
284:
Rihanna is about to release a new album, Skin being released is like saying Michael Jackson is still alive.
269:
195:
1943:
1915:
1864:
1817:
1802:
1705:
1652:
1608:
1572:
1491:
1468:
1376:
1312:
1293:
938:
895:
796:
759:
435:
1231:
1145:
500:
1333:
1235:
1194:
1153:
504:
459:
1899:
1860:
1798:
1701:
1648:
1604:
1568:
1464:
1372:
1308:
1289:
1149:
1083:
A merge is just pointless. There is too much info to merge it, I assume you would suggest merging with
422:
1939:
1485:? It's easy to claim arguments as "trivial" when you only address a small portion of the discussion...
709:
That is a very valid point, and what I have been trying to say for literally ages, but no one listens.
1253:
1217:
1180:
1131:
1085:
140:
1845:
1762:
1738:
1448:
1329:
1108:
1049:
959:
916:
878:
831:
721:
683:
588:
559:
415:
378:
334:
295:
238:
160:
69:
61:
1935:
1891:
1794:
1482:
1394:
1345:
1284:
1127:
787:
690:
642:
531:
1754:
1746:
846:
320:
193:
990:
184:
1910:
1812:
1782:
1726:
1687:
1486:
1074:
1020:
1002:
933:
890:
791:
754:
699:
631:
611:
541:
482:
430:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
52:
1931:
1679:
1622:
1368:
1061:
986:
496:
1750:
1481:
He said a lot more than just that. Did you read all of what he said? Like the part about
1349:
There's nothing about this song that is so special that it requires making an exception.—
978:
863:
It was for incase they became a single. What is to stop me from re-directing it back to
1835:
1730:
1438:
1098:
1039:
949:
906:
868:
821:
711:
673:
578:
405:
368:
324:
285:
1097:
not realizing that Skin was not released as a single, so there are no single reviews.
889:
I don't believe hardly any of that counts as a valid argument for "keep" in an AFD...
1543:
1430:
1403:
1354:
312:
1678:- I was asked to add another comment, but I don't have anything to add, except "per
1148:
as an argument? Sorry, that doesn't count as a valid reason for a keep. This is not
1683:
1631:
1587:
1552:
1526:
1212:
1070:
1016:
998:
695:
627:
607:
535:
478:
572:
The bit about when the song was recorded is just as relevant here as it is on the
107:
1853:
1770:
646:
386:
349:
215:
49:
1722:
1130:
but it is very well written and 16 sources are enough for a separate article.
491:
1887:
1778:
1434:
1066:
1629:
about preventing lawsuits, it is about preventing harm to living people.
1460:
1399:
1350:
1765:. I feel that this, in addition to the sources from places such as the
1742:
429:. And regardless of your own interpretations, keep =/= no consensus.
1211:
OK. I misunderstood the rule. But according to that, every song by
1721:= the page now contains specific coverage and commentary from the
668:, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is
1955:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
985:. Some of the references are necessarily brief, but it passes
477:
received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
1774:
1766:
385:
With no agreement on whether it should be deleted or kept. —
103:
99:
95:
1550:
as a source for anything relating to a living person.
1065:
good idea to merge the "Live performances" section to
159:
602:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
173:
492:My comments are incorrect according to who? You?.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1965:). No further edits should be made to this page.
497:Knowledge (XXG):GNG#General_notability_guideline
8:
600:Note: This debate has been included in the
367:Well, the article is still here, is it not?
599:
1793:needs to be applied when concerns about
1623:WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply
1179:verifiable material and it is detailed.
1307:seems like a case of splitting hairs.
315:has been through this as well and was
534:at the moment. No charts, no awards.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
530:per Lakeshade. This article fails
24:
1093:significant coverage. People are
645:calls for charts and awards. —
1:
1948:09:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1921:01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1905:22:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1869:09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1848:09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1823:01:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1807:21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1710:21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1692:21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1657:09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1638:08:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1613:00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1594:21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1577:21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1559:21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1533:18:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1497:20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1473:19:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1451:18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1437:can stay, then so can Skin.
1408:18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1381:17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1359:10:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1338:15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
1317:17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1298:00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
1262:21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1248:21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1226:21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1207:20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1189:20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1166:20:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1140:20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1111:22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1079:22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1052:11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1025:01:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1007:22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
979:loads of excellent citations
962:11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
944:04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
919:21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
901:20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
881:21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
859:20:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
834:20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
802:19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
765:16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
724:16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
704:16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
686:15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
660:14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
636:14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
616:14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
591:17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
568:13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
548:13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
517:01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
487:01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
472:08:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
441:19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
418:14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
400:14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
381:14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
363:14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
337:07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
298:07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
278:06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
258:05:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
229:01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
206:01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
56:17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1982:
1424:track apart from one, and
981:including a review in the
818:Complicated (Rihanna song)
670:enough verifiable material
1393:as a standalone article.
344:is not the same thing as
1958:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1759:The Wall Street Journal
1144:So you're going to use
820:still is a re-direct.
1086:Loud (Rihanna album)
1058:significant coverage
1763:The Daily Telegraph
1739:The Huffington Post
1420:has an article for
427:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
311:- For fucks sakes,
70:Skin (Rihanna song)
62:Skin (Rihanna song)
1755:The Times of India
321:Raining Men (song)
270:Capitalistroadster
44:The result was
1791:WP:IGNOREALLRULES
1783:Chicago Sun-Times
1727:Los Angeles Times
618:
605:
255:
1973:
1960:
1918:
1913:
1902:
1897:
1894:
1842:
1820:
1815:
1494:
1489:
1445:
1244:
1238:
1203:
1197:
1162:
1156:
1105:
1046:
993:. Her music is
956:
941:
936:
913:
898:
893:
875:
828:
799:
794:
762:
757:
718:
680:
666:Notability aside
651:
606:
585:
513:
507:
468:
462:
438:
433:
412:
391:
375:
354:
331:
292:
256:
241:
220:
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1963:deletion review
1956:
1916:
1911:
1900:
1895:
1892:
1836:
1818:
1813:
1751:Hindustan Times
1492:
1487:
1439:
1254:My love is love
1242:
1236:
1230:Again with the
1218:My love is love
1201:
1195:
1181:My love is love
1160:
1154:
1132:My love is love
1099:
1040:
950:
948:I have, a lot.
939:
934:
907:
896:
891:
869:
851:
822:
797:
792:
760:
755:
712:
674:
658:
647:
579:
511:
505:
466:
460:
436:
431:
406:
398:
387:
369:
361:
350:
325:
286:
237:
227:
216:
198:
120:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1979:
1977:
1968:
1967:
1951:
1950:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1826:
1825:
1787:WP:COMMONSENSE
1731:Evening Herald
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1695:
1694:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1641:
1640:
1616:
1615:
1597:
1596:
1580:
1579:
1562:
1561:
1536:
1535:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1476:
1475:
1454:
1453:
1411:
1410:
1384:
1383:
1362:
1361:
1340:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1301:
1300:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1028:
1027:
1012:Merge/redirect
1009:
983:New York Times
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
924:
923:
922:
921:
886:
885:
884:
883:
849:
805:
804:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
654:
620:
619:
596:
595:
594:
593:
551:
550:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
394:
357:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
261:
260:
232:
231:
223:
196:
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1978:
1966:
1964:
1959:
1953:
1952:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1914:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1903:
1898:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1881:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1856:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1846:
1843:
1841:
1840:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1816:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1789:and possibly
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1725:(twice), the
1724:
1720:
1717:
1716:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1549:
1545:
1544:The Loud Tour
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1498:
1495:
1490:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1443:
1436:
1432:
1431:Freakum Dress
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1398:information.—
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1347:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1239:
1237:(CK)Lakeshade
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1196:(CK)Lakeshade
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1163:
1157:
1155:(CK)Lakeshade
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1044:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
973:
972:
963:
960:
957:
955:
954:
947:
946:
945:
942:
937:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
920:
917:
914:
912:
911:
904:
903:
902:
899:
894:
888:
887:
882:
879:
876:
874:
873:
866:
862:
861:
860:
857:
854:
853:
852:
847:
843:
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
829:
827:
826:
819:
814:
810:
803:
800:
795:
789:
785:
782:
781:
766:
763:
758:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
725:
722:
719:
717:
716:
710:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
689:
688:
687:
684:
681:
679:
678:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
652:
650:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
603:
598:
597:
592:
589:
586:
584:
583:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
556:
553:
552:
549:
545:
544:
539:
538:
533:
529:
526:
525:
518:
514:
508:
506:(CK)Lakeshade
502:
498:
493:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
463:
461:(CK)Lakeshade
457:
454:
442:
439:
434:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
416:
413:
411:
410:
403:
402:
401:
397:
392:
390:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
374:
373:
366:
365:
364:
360:
355:
353:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
335:
332:
330:
329:
322:
318:
314:
313:Fading (song)
310:
307:
306:
299:
296:
293:
291:
290:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
266:
263:
262:
259:
253:
251:
245:
240:
239:★Jivesh 1205★
234:
233:
230:
226:
221:
219:
213:
212:Speedy Delete
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
201:
200:
199:
194:
190:
186:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
122:Find sources:
118:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1957:
1954:
1927:
1912:Sergecross73
1883:
1861:SplashScreen
1838:
1837:
1814:Sergecross73
1799:SplashScreen
1735:Daily Record
1718:
1702:SplashScreen
1675:
1649:SplashScreen
1632:
1630:
1626:
1605:SplashScreen
1588:
1586:
1569:SplashScreen
1553:
1551:
1547:
1527:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1488:Sergecross73
1465:SplashScreen
1441:
1440:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1390:
1373:SplashScreen
1342:
1325:
1309:SplashScreen
1290:SplashScreen
1280:
1232:WP:OTHERCRAP
1213:Janis Joplin
1146:WP:OTHERCRAP
1123:
1101:
1100:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1057:
1042:
1041:
1035:
1011:
995:not my thing
982:
974:
952:
951:
935:Sergecross73
909:
908:
892:Sergecross73
871:
870:
864:
855:
845:
844:
841:
824:
823:
812:
808:
806:
793:Sergecross73
783:
756:Sergecross73
714:
713:
708:
676:
675:
669:
665:
648:
623:
581:
580:
573:
554:
542:
536:
527:
455:
432:Sergecross73
408:
407:
388:
371:
370:
351:
345:
342:No consensus
341:
327:
326:
316:
308:
288:
287:
264:
249:
217:
211:
202:
192:
191:
188:
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1940:11coolguy12
1884:Speedy Keep
1771:Toronto Sun
1150:WP:NOTAVOTE
867:right now?
423:WP:NOTAVOTE
147:free images
1723:Daily Mail
1548:Daily Mail
1391:considered
252:a try!!!♫♫
1936:WP:NSONGS
1888:Loud Tour
1797:crop up.
1795:WP:NSONGS
1779:USA Today
1483:WP:NSONGS
1435:Suga Mama
1395:WP:NSONGS
1346:WP:NSONGS
1285:WP:NSONGS
1128:WP:NSONGS
1067:Loud Tour
788:WP:NSONGS
691:WP:NSONGS
643:WP:NSONGS
608:• Gene93k
532:WP:NSONGS
501:consensus
1781:and the
1461:User:Kww
1330:Nicholas
991:WP:MUSIC
786:- Fails
656:contribs
396:contribs
359:contribs
225:contribs
185:WP:MUSIC
114:View log
48:. v/r -
1839:Calvin
1761:, and
1747:Stylist
1684:Bearian
1676:Comment
1633:Hut 8.5
1589:Hut 8.5
1554:Hut 8.5
1528:Hut 8.5
1442:Calvin
1243:talk2me
1202:talk2me
1161:talk2me
1102:Calvin
1071:Jenks24
1043:Calvin
1017:Jenks24
999:Bearian
953:Calvin
910:Calvin
872:Calvin
825:Calvin
715:Calvin
696:DeansFA
677:Calvin
628:DeansFA
582:Calvin
560:Pancake
537:Novice7
512:talk2me
479:Jenks24
467:talk2me
409:Calvin
372:Calvin
328:Calvin
289:Calvin
248:♫♫Give
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
1932:WP:GNG
1917:msg me
1819:msg me
1769:, the
1749:, the
1743:Grazia
1733:, the
1729:, the
1680:WP:HEY
1520:chart
1493:msg me
1369:WP:GNG
1343:Delete
1062:WP:WAX
987:WP:GNG
940:msg me
905:What?
897:msg me
798:msg me
784:Delete
761:msg me
649:Status
555:Delete
528:Delete
456:Delete
437:msg me
389:Status
352:Status
218:Status
183:Fails
125:Google
91:delete
1896:mango
1514:Merge
1422:every
1418:B'Day
1095:still
1036:still
265:Merge
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
1944:talk
1934:and
1928:Keep
1901:mwa!
1893:miko
1865:talk
1803:talk
1719:Note
1706:talk
1688:talk
1653:talk
1609:talk
1573:talk
1469:talk
1433:and
1404:talk
1377:talk
1355:talk
1334:talk
1326:Keep
1313:talk
1294:talk
1281:Keep
1258:talk
1222:talk
1185:talk
1136:talk
1124:Keep
1075:talk
1021:talk
1003:talk
989:and
975:Keep
865:Loud
850:dןǝɥ
813:Loud
809:Loud
700:talk
632:talk
624:Keep
612:talk
574:Loud
564:talk
543:talk
483:talk
346:Kept
317:kept
309:Keep
274:talk
244:talk
197:dןǝɥ
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
1775:MTV
1767:BBC
1682:".
1627:not
1522:are
1518:did
1459:So
1400:Kww
1351:Kww
175:TWL
112:– (
1946:)
1867:)
1859:)
1844:•
1805:)
1777:,
1773:,
1757:,
1753:,
1745:,
1741:,
1737:,
1708:)
1690:)
1655:)
1611:)
1575:)
1471:)
1447:•
1406:)
1379:)
1357:)
1336:)
1315:)
1296:)
1260:)
1246:-
1240:-
1224:)
1205:-
1199:-
1187:)
1164:-
1158:-
1138:)
1107:•
1091:is
1077:)
1048:•
1023:)
1005:)
977:-
958:•
915:•
877:•
830:•
790:.
720:•
702:)
682:•
634:)
614:)
604:.
587:•
566:)
546:)
515:-
509:-
485:)
470:-
464:-
425:.
414:•
377:•
333:•
294:•
276:)
246:/
187:.
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
1942:(
1863:(
1801:(
1704:(
1686:(
1651:(
1607:(
1571:(
1467:(
1426:4
1402:(
1375:(
1353:(
1332:(
1311:(
1292:(
1256:(
1220:(
1183:(
1134:(
1073:(
1019:(
1001:(
856:|
842:|
698:(
664:"
653:{
630:(
610:(
562:(
540:(
481:(
393:{
356:{
272:(
254:)
250:4
242:(
222:{
203:|
189:|
179:)
171:·
165:·
157:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
132:·
127:(
119:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
53:P
50:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.