Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song) - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

202:, which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". This song does not pass any of this criteria. The vast majority of the sources here do not refer to the song in its own right, but are retracted from reviews of 575:, but just to point out that by comparison, "Speechless" has a wealth of information about it, particularly citation 4, which is entirely about the song. Granted, the majority of the other references provide just passing mentions (not even 1 sentence in some instances; as many as 3 sentences in a few instances). My bottom line is, as 571:, survived despite the most significant "coverage" being an About.com posting that pretty much consists solely of an image. I realize that the song charted, but charted songs are only "probably notable", not "definitely notable" enough to warrant an article, especially if there's virtually zero coverage. My point is not to violate 970:
The song has been performed on a major awards show, charted on several charts and is to be a future single. Gaga has also heavily promoted it in many interviews. Regardless of this, the article has more information than many singles articles do, which is a hard thing to do, and so it should be kept.
1019:
This article and the songs are not notable, they are notable just for Gaga's fans (above), who, in fact, created this article only cause they "love Lady Gaga". All this guys are saying that is notable enough, but, not even in Google is notable, is just notable for Gaga's people, sorry, but it has to
914:
Since the nomination of this article, the song in question has charted the BillBoard Hot 100. Would have voted a weaker keep initially even before the release of the 12 December 09 charts as a frequency mentioned single of a mainstream artist, but it's apperance that list unquestionably causes this
532:
I'm not going to go too crazy defending this article, but out of curiousity, what elements of the general notability guideline do you feel are not satisfied? The five main criteria are 1) significant coverage, 2) reliable, 3) sources, 4) independent of the subject and 5) presumed. To me, it seems
397:
mean it doesn't warrant an article. The very next sentence in WP:NSONGS after that one is, "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
1024:, so, it doesn't matter if "If every Pink Floyd song can get an article" like someone said before, not every song has to have an article about it, no matter if some of those articles say "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z", we don't need any more crap. Sorry, got to be deleted. 1001:
I feel as though the wealth of knowledge surrounding this song more than makes it worthy of having its own article. Also, there are many articles for singles on this website that have absolutely no content in them, aside from "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z."
241:
per nominator. The song hasn't charted and most of the references are in relation to the parent article, showing no individual notability. As an observer of the Lady Gaga articles for some time, it does seem that articles appear to crop up regularly that often get deleted.
579:
states, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Indeed, I would consider this article to be reasonably detailed, and so I'm in favor of keeping this. As for those songs on
398:
merged to articles about an artist or album." Obviously, in this case, there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant an entry, and the article is already reasonably detailed. WP:NSONGS also points out that the song must meet basic
672:
These article defenately passes, it have more information than most articles of number-one hits. And don't worry about the song not charting in any country, the digital sales last week guarantee that it will debut tomorrow on the
163: 258: 344:
You're the main contributor of said article. Your continual arguments are becoming distruptive and pedantic - please make your points in one !vote and refrain from continual distruption.
157: 124: 511:
per nom. All of the sources provided absolutely establish the notability of Lady Gaga and The Fame Monster, however notability of this individual song has not been established.
454: 220:
The song has been performed a number of times. The critical notability of this song and the fact that it has received widespread media coverage is what makes it notable.
457:) are left article-less. The same can be said for MANY unreleased songs by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and other acts who have whole books written on single albums. 450: 97: 92: 101: 84: 1070:" as well, because it never charted since it wasn't released as a single. Surliness of votes like the one above not doing nomination much help, either. 867: 828:. This obviously passes the general notability guideline, and the charts that have just been released even further make this article pass NSONGS. 475:
argument. But personally, I'd rather see those articles get made (with the appropriate reliable secondary sources) than this one get deleted. —
178: 145: 410:
of the subject. This article also meets those standards: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —
472: 17: 548: 490: 425: 139: 88: 1045:
states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Such is the case here.--
835: 568: 286: 52:. There's no way that consensus is going to change from keep. It has charted as of three days ago, a day after the nomination. 1102: 1079: 1054: 1033: 1011: 991: 962: 945: 927: 906: 887: 870: 838: 820: 802: 781: 758: 725: 705: 686: 662: 646: 633: 596: 557: 527: 499: 466: 434: 373: 353: 339: 323: 300: 275: 248: 231: 215: 135: 66: 449:
has recieved the same coverage (it being probably the most critically acclaimed album ever) but still The Lady in My Life (
752: 987: 61: 1117: 185: 36: 80: 72: 328:
Accompanying "Bad Romance" performances? "Speechless" was the primary performances in AMAs and Ellen. Weird point.
407: 1029: 766:
per Hunter Kahn. Not only is there a stunning amount of sources to prove the article is verifiable and meets the
1116:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
746: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
915:
article to fall in the Keep category. Satisfies all requirements for coverage and notability, and then some.
151: 779: 53: 975: 1097: 1066:. Notability clearly established. By nominator's strict application of criteria, we would have to delete " 1042: 1021: 1007: 572: 442: 362:. I can argue and make points as long as I want. You cannot possibly stop me from making logical points. 1075: 723: 701: 660: 631: 540: 482: 462: 417: 371: 349: 337: 298: 229: 211: 206:
album, leaving the song as notable as any other song on the album and not deserving of its own article.
878:
It has charted in even multiple countries. Two is more than one. But one could probably be sufficient.—
403: 1050: 1025: 958: 860: 523: 1003: 693: 830: 171: 1088: 771: 576: 386: 199: 1067: 979: 775: 682: 644: 319: 847: 790: 607: 1092: 883: 816: 615: 584:
that don't have articles...if enough information exists, I'm all for their creation, as well.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
49: 1071: 983: 798: 741:
Pink Floyd song can get an article, then "Speechless" deserves one too. It surely meets the
715: 697: 652: 623: 535: 477: 458: 446: 412: 363: 345: 329: 290: 244: 221: 207: 203: 1020:
be deleted. BTW, a lot of the guys here, that try to keep the article are forgetting about
767: 742: 359: 282: 1046: 954: 941: 916: 852: 512: 651:
The nom's deletion has been contested. So please explain your disapproval more detailed.
902: 270: 811: 611: 399: 678: 587: 315: 393:
notable". In other words, just because it doesn't fit any of those criteria doesn't
879: 622:. Wait for Billboard to update their website. do you need any other notability? :D 118: 794: 311: 774:
as probably notable. Taken together, there should be no doubt about keeping. -
937: 897: 266: 310:- no proof of independent notability outside of the album and accompanying 895:, eminently satisfies significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. 711: 619: 710:
In that case its a fail again as the song has already charted on the
850:
as it has received widespread media coverage throughout the world.
1110:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
694:
Knowledge (XXG) does not guess what will happen in the future
614:, the song has already charted at sixty on Billboard's 114: 110: 106: 170: 259:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
281:The song has charted now. Not to be going on about 184: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1120:). No further edits should be made to this page. 936:Charted song, perfomed on tv and good article.-- 1091:: has charted, and has significant coverage. 8: 445:for a moment; surely almost every song on 253: 618:chart and entered at ninety-four on the 257:: This debate has been included in the 810:as per Hunter Kahn's rationale, passes 285:, but if this one is deleted, so would 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 567:. Another recent Lady Gaga AfD nom, 24: 569:Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song) 287:Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song) 1: 471:Well, as you said, that's an 1103:18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1080:17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1055:22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 1034:22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 1012:15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 992:05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 963:01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 946:22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 928:20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 907:05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 888:05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 871:21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 839:21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 821:19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 803:17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 782:13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 770:, by charting it also meets 759:13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 743:general notability guideline 726:12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 706:11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 687:04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 663:06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 647:03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 634:03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 597:03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 558:02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 533:they are all satisfied... — 528:01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 500:01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 467:01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 435:01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 389:the nominator cites is "are 385:- The key to the portion of 374:12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 354:11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 340:03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 324:00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 301:06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 276:23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 249:22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 232:03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 216:22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 67:18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 81:Speechless (Lady Gaga song) 73:Speechless (Lady Gaga song) 1137: 1113:Please do not modify it. 473:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 32:Please do not modify it. 400:notability guidelines 453:) and Baby Be Mine ( 358:Please refrain from 198:due to a failure of 748:12345abcxyz20082009 1068:Stairway to Heaven 451:1,180,000,000 hits 44:The result was 995: 978:comment added by 920: 712:Billboard Hot 100 616:Hot Digital Songs 595: 555: 526: 497: 432: 278: 262: 1128: 1115: 1100: 1095: 994: 972: 924: 918: 863: 855: 833: 755: 749: 721: 658: 629: 594: 591: 585: 551: 545: 543: 538: 522: 520: 519: 516: 493: 487: 485: 480: 447:Thriller (album) 428: 422: 420: 415: 404:reliable sources 402:and coverage in 369: 335: 296: 274: 263: 227: 204:The Fame Monster 189: 188: 174: 122: 104: 64: 60: 56: 34: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1118:deletion review 1111: 1098: 1093: 1026:Fortunato luigi 973: 917: 861: 853: 831: 753: 747: 716: 653: 624: 589: 586: 554: 549: 541: 536: 517: 514: 513: 496: 491: 483: 478: 431: 426: 418: 413: 364: 330: 291: 265: 222: 131: 95: 79: 76: 62: 58: 54: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1134: 1132: 1123: 1122: 1106: 1105: 1082: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1037: 1036: 1014: 996: 965: 948: 931: 909: 890: 873: 841: 823: 805: 784: 761: 731: 730: 729: 728: 690: 689: 667: 666: 665: 637: 636: 600: 599: 562: 561: 560: 546: 505: 504: 503: 502: 488: 438: 437: 423: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 342: 314:performances. 305: 304: 303: 251: 236: 235: 234: 192: 191: 128: 75: 70: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1133: 1121: 1119: 1114: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1096: 1090: 1087:as it passes 1086: 1083: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1015: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1000: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 969: 966: 964: 960: 956: 952: 949: 947: 943: 939: 935: 932: 930: 929: 925: 923: 913: 910: 908: 904: 900: 899: 894: 891: 889: 885: 881: 877: 874: 872: 869: 865: 864: 857: 856: 849: 845: 842: 840: 837: 836: 834: 827: 824: 822: 819: 818: 813: 809: 806: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 785: 783: 780: 777: 773: 769: 765: 762: 760: 756: 750: 744: 740: 736: 733: 732: 727: 724: 722: 720: 713: 709: 708: 707: 703: 699: 695: 692: 691: 688: 684: 680: 676: 671: 668: 664: 661: 659: 657: 650: 649: 648: 645: 642: 639: 638: 635: 632: 630: 628: 621: 617: 613: 610:. And as for 609: 605: 602: 601: 598: 593: 592: 583: 578: 574: 570: 566: 563: 559: 556: 552: 544: 539: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 510: 507: 506: 501: 498: 494: 486: 481: 474: 470: 469: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 439: 436: 433: 429: 421: 416: 409: 405: 401: 396: 392: 388: 384: 381: 375: 372: 370: 368: 361: 357: 356: 355: 351: 347: 343: 341: 338: 336: 334: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 306: 302: 299: 297: 295: 288: 284: 280: 279: 277: 272: 268: 260: 256: 252: 250: 247: 246: 240: 237: 233: 230: 228: 226: 219: 218: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 187: 183: 180: 177: 173: 169: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 137: 134: 133:Find sources: 129: 126: 120: 116: 112: 108: 103: 99: 94: 90: 86: 82: 78: 77: 74: 71: 69: 68: 65: 57: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1112: 1109: 1084: 1063: 1043:WP:OTHERCRAP 1022:WP:OTHERCRAP 1016: 998: 967: 950: 933: 926: 921: 911: 896: 892: 875: 859: 851: 843: 829: 825: 815: 807: 786: 763: 738: 734: 718: 674: 669: 655: 640: 626: 603: 588: 581: 573:WP:OTHERCRAP 564: 534: 508: 476: 455:898,000 hits 443:WP:OTHERCRAP 411: 394: 390: 382: 366: 332: 307: 293: 254: 243: 238: 224: 195: 181: 175: 167: 160: 154: 148: 142: 132: 45: 43: 31: 28: 1072:Daniel Case 1064:Strong keep 974:—Preceding 953:Per Gong.-- 698:GaGaOohLaLa 643:- per nom. 606:Way passes 459:GaGaOohLaLa 441:Forgetting 408:independent 395:necessarily 346:GaGaOohLaLa 312:Bad Romance 208:GaGaOohLaLa 158:free images 1047:Epeefleche 955:Epeefleche 868:Review me! 854:Aaroncrick 1089:WP:NSONGS 1004:Benchilla 772:WP:NSONGS 677:Hot 100. 675:Billboard 590:Gongshow 577:WP:NSONGS 406:that are 387:WP:NSONGS 271:talk page 200:WP:NSONGS 988:contribs 976:unsigned 922:Bullfish 848:WP:NSONG 832:Chase wc 791:WP:NSONG 679:Frcm1988 608:WP:NSONG 582:Thriller 391:probably 316:Bravedog 125:View log 1094:talking 1017:Delete: 880:Iknow23 846:passes 789:passes 719:Legolas 656:Legolas 627:Legolas 620:Hot 100 367:Legolas 333:Legolas 294:Legolas 225:Legolas 164:WP refs 152:scholar 98:protect 93:history 63:Windows 50:WP:SNOW 980:Tikkuy 795:SveroH 768:WP:GNG 641:Delete 537:Hunter 515:Snotty 509:Delete 479:Hunter 414:Hunter 360:WP:NPA 308:Delete 283:WP:WAX 239:Delete 196:Delete 136:Google 102:delete 55:Fences 48:. Per 1099:birds 999:Keep: 968:Keep: 951:Keep. 938:Aaa16 817:Jimbo 739:every 737:. If 179:JSTOR 140:books 119:views 111:watch 107:links 59:& 16:< 1085:Keep 1076:talk 1051:talk 1030:talk 1008:talk 984:talk 959:talk 942:talk 934:Keep 912:Keep 903:talk 898:Cirt 893:Keep 884:talk 876:Keep 862:talk 844:Keep 826:Keep 814:. -- 812:WP:N 808:Keep 799:talk 787:Keep 764:Keep 754:talk 735:Keep 702:talk 683:talk 670:Keep 612:WP:N 604:Keep 565:Keep 542:Kahn 524:talk 518:Wong 484:Kahn 463:talk 419:Kahn 383:Keep 350:talk 320:talk 267:J04n 255:Note 245:Dale 212:talk 172:FENS 146:news 115:logs 89:talk 85:edit 46:keep 866:) 776:Mgm 745:.-- 186:TWL 123:– ( 1078:) 1053:) 1032:) 1010:) 1002:-- 990:) 986:• 961:) 944:) 919:DJ 905:) 886:) 801:) 793:-- 757:) 717:-- 714:. 704:) 696:. 685:) 654:-- 625:-- 465:) 365:-- 352:) 331:-- 322:) 292:-- 289:. 261:. 223:-- 214:) 166:) 117:| 113:| 109:| 105:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 1074:( 1049:( 1028:( 1006:( 982:( 957:( 940:( 901:( 882:( 858:( 797:( 778:| 751:( 700:( 681:( 553:) 550:c 547:( 495:) 492:c 489:( 461:( 430:) 427:c 424:( 348:( 318:( 273:) 269:( 264:— 210:( 190:) 182:· 176:· 168:· 161:· 155:· 149:· 143:· 138:( 130:( 127:) 121:) 83:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
WP:SNOW
Fences
Windows
18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Speechless (Lady Gaga song)
Speechless (Lady Gaga song)
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
WP:NSONGS
The Fame Monster
GaGaOohLaLa

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