1208:- firstly the whole of the background and release section is about the album and not relevant except for the last two sentences. Additionally the critical reception is all from album reviews, The "Other versions" section is not notable. The track listing and "release" is dubious - it was sourced from Discogs and then replaced with an offline references. Releases like this are for promo purposes and media - not the general public. A release needs coverage in its own right separate from the parent album, otherwise the information could and should be included on the parent album page. GA status is nothing to do with notability - there are lots of examples in the past of well written non-notable topics. With less than 500 views since its creation in 2016 - that's also an indication of its lack of notability. ≫
1541:
upload photos of the release in question before. I have an extensive music collection and should not need to justify how or why I own an international CD. I understand the request, but considering what led up to it, I am insulted that my use of offline sources has been fine up until this AfD. Yes, I am admittedly a fan of
Stefani, but I do not let it interfere with my pledge to adhere to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies concerning notability and reliability. I want to fight for this article but I am no longer willing to go out of my way to prove myself to others.
1632:) is already longish. Album reviews are an entirely reasonable place to look for information about a song, I'd say, bearing mind that a source doesn't have to be devoted to a subject in order to have meaningful content on it. Charting is one reason why a song could be worth documenting, but it's hardly the only reason, just like a book can be worth writing about even if (gasp) it isn't a best-seller.
937:
that is the site should not be used outside of external links on
Knowledge (XXG). Anyway, I am having difficulty accepting why this combination of independent sourcing, cover versions (including one by a major group), a promotional release, and album reviews is not enough to meets the guidelines of NSONGS. Yes, a lot of the coverage comes from these reviews of
1468:, but NSONGS also says: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which is the case here, and nothing here is trivial. Due to the multiple contradictions found at NSONGS, I wouldn't take it seriously beyond an advice page, and I'll stick with
914:" which I think is by no means an indication of an official release. The "GSPRCD" release ID is also fishy (I may be conducting original research here, but it is quite an abbreviation of "Gwen Stefani Promo CD"), given that label release IDs often contain number-only strings, or a mix of letters and numbers (i.e.
1115:
I have done no such thing. My argument has never been that – I simply believe that a combination of album reviews and independent sourcing, on the song (in this case), should suffice and is still in compliance with notability guidelines. It is as if there is some imaginary number of sources I need to
936:
I want to state that I have this promotional copy of "The Real Thing" in my personal CD collection, and I would have never added it as a citation in the first place if I doubted its legitimacy. The
Discogs source being discussed was added over 5 years ago and has since been removed – I am fully aware
558:
I do not think it is fair to say that I have cherry-picked information from "scattered sources". Despite not being the main contributor to this article in the past, I knew that it was in need of help when you first alerted me of its AfD, and it has long been on my mental list of articles to revisit.
1512:
To note, I am still inclined towards redirect--the better alternative is to expand L.A.M.B.'s article (which is currently lacking a "Production" section, and whose "Composition" section is awaiting a much needed update to keep it up-to-par with current Music FAs). I would not however canvass others
1059:
I missed the NME source, but then incorporating that, it will add up to three (NME, Idolator, Pop Void -- the last of which is dubious). Why do you have to repeat yourself, when I specifically said that those three sources are not sufficient for a standalone article? If most sources incl. Billboard
618:
am very skeptical of the liner notes, as the source claims the single had a promo release in the
Philippines, while most editors of the article, including you, are from presumably the U.S.). The RSMUSIC is just a guide, and "Gay City News" not being included in it does not mean it is notable per-se
1540:
are the images that were requested. Unfortunately, the more and more I read some of the comments above, the more I feel my credibility as an editor has been questioned. I've written dozens of GA-quality pages that contain the AV media notes template for promotional CDs and have never been asked to
1459:
is clear here: "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. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an
888:. Not a CD, or liner notes, or anything... just cover art. For all we know it's fan-made. It even says "draft" on the right side. Nevertheless, 2005 isn't ancient—there would be more sources if it was notable (maybe it wasn't 2005? who knows... I don't even think this was an official release).
591:
redirect, only adding unnecessary weight. I am fully aware that a non-radio single from 2005 is not going to have a hundred references about it, but it does have some. Isn't that why NSONGS notes that "the number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from
1092:
By the way, is there any way you could upload the promotional copy of the single onto platforms like Flickr or Imgur? That may or may not determine notability (as I said, single release does not grant notability), but to make sure the information at other Gwen
Stefani articles is correct i.e.
1560:
My intentions were not at all malicious--though I do understand you may have a rough time dealing with my behavior. Probably the
Discogs site shouldn't have been listed in the first place, as that site is fishy and has raised quite a lot questions about its reliability, especially since the
1415:
does a track-by-track review which in the end is an album review, NME source just states she was inspired by New Order? and they say how their collaboration never came to fruition? The
Idolator source is a good one. The Idolator and NME info can be added to the album page.
1666:
per XOR. And because the NSONGS guidance about excluding album reviews becomes silly when there is this much specific content about the song; I would point to GNG in such cases where the album reviews would be included as long as they are reliable sources.
84:
1685:
That is to make sure the articles do not stray into excessive details. I have nothing against it, but I have seen quite a few articles that are dramatically overwritten with no substance (note--I am not referring to this article specifically).
1493:
Thank you for bringing up WP:NSONGS as a rule of thumb rather than carved-in-the-stone policy. I do admit NSONGS is sometimes frustrating. Alas, I am waiting for the promo release confirmation to make sure information is correctly represented.
559:
I disagree with your stance, and I believe I expanded the article to an appropriate manner that would meet the requirements of NSONGS. In regards to the concerns you raised above, why is the media citation of the CD itself not sufficient?
417:. This article has not seen a lot of editing activity in nearly 5 years, which I understand bears zero significance in the case of an AfD, but I would like to make it known that this content is being actively worked on to meet guidelines.
571:
source is completely about
Stefani's attempt to work with New Order on "The Real Thing"; yes, the actual title is only mentioned once but the entirety of the article is about the song's development. I was unaware of the unreliability of
750:– An Interscope citation is being used to back up this promotional CD release not Discogs, which is fully reliable. Also, the song has a good number of live performances and other versions mentioned; these definitely show notability. --
216:
1641:
1155:
Sorry for being doubtful. I just want to make sure the information is correct, as there is little information on this promo release outside
Discogs, which is rather skeptical. I believe this is for the best of this site.
1314:
coverage outside of album reviews, and it does look like a majority of the coverage is about the album reviews. I would prefer to leave this decision up to other editors. I just wanted to comment as I have been pinged.
1170:
I still say my ground that sources on this article are insufficient for a standalone article, and some sections can be trimmed tremendously. I would however leave it to other editors to discuss towards a consensus.
79:
1464:: a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation". The article is built upon album reviews and should be merged into the parent album? Yes, per
1002:? The entirety of the article is about Stefani's attempts in creating the song. I dislike repeating myself, but I feel as if the legitimacy of several sources is not even being considered. In regards to your
815:- Drastically overwritten like most Stefani Knowledge (XXG) articles. However, a quick scan through the references confirms nearly all coverage is dependent on album reviews, no charting information either.--
587:, so I do not believe that it is unreliable per se. I think the content introduced in these particular sources is beneficial to the reader and includes information that would be out of place on the suggested
540:
article is a revisit of the album and not the song. If things are cherry-picked from scattered sources like this, I don't think it is fair to say the song has received coverage outside album reviews.
388:
As a GA can be reassessed, so can notability. Just to notice that there have been quite a few AfDs for Songs GAs. I don't think a GA status can automatically indicate that the song is notable per-se.
766:
I do not think NSONGS mention anything about live performances or remixes unless they themselves also attract coverage. Being performed once or thrice does not make a song inherently notable.
272:
627:
would add "unnecessary weight", given that Album background/production sections often incorporate the conception of each and every song, which is a perfectly normal thing. Otherwise, the
210:
52:. This is close, but I see an emerging consensus that the sourcing and content are sufficient for a standalone article, in spite of the amount of coverage coming from album reviews. —
689:– Due to the article's recent expansion and addition of multiple published sources outside of album reviews, I vote to keep this article per my understanding that it meets WP:NSONGS.
150:
145:
154:
251:). As the article is made up of mostly album reviews (especially the "critical reception" section), and it has not charted on any singles chart, I am afraid this article fails
137:
177:
994:
I am referring to the
Vitamin Strings Quartet cover and the accompanying AllMusic review by Johnny Loftus. I realize that not all singles are notable. What's wrong with
436:
Feel free to expand the article. Once the article is expanded, ping me so that I could see the progress. Keep in mind, though, please don't include Discogs as a source.
567:
both list this format as a generally reliable source. The only information I have obtained from the media is the track listing and length, release year, and label. The
457:– I have recently published an edit that greatly expanded the article. The expansion added several sources where "The Real Thing" was the article's main subject (see
292:
1074:
Not to mention the String Quartet review is on the tribute album and not this song per-se. Stop justifying a song's notability in the concept of album reviews.
1060:
discuss this song as part of the same artistic project (in this case, the L.A.M.B. album), then why a standalone article should be created in the first place?
109:
941:, but a rather sizable amount of the article's content is also derived from the sources I've mentioned. It seems like everyone interprets NSONGS differently.
1713:
1695:
1676:
1658:
1616:
1570:
1550:
1522:
1503:
1484:
1443:
1425:
1399:
1370:
1351:
1324:
1298:
1280:
1257:
1232:
1180:
1165:
1143:
1125:
1106:
1083:
1069:
1049:
1031:
985:
960:
If you happen to have the promo CD of it, then I'll accept it on good faith. I don't know which "major group" you are referring to, but perhaps you'll find
950:
927:
897:
865:
846:
828:
801:
775:
754:
742:
717:
698:
666:
644:
601:
549:
502:
445:
426:
397:
376:
363:
348:
323:
304:
284:
264:
64:
124:
466:
355:
Well via the GA process. It would have been reviewed by several editors, and I highly doubt an article that does not meet WP:GNG would become a GA.
141:
231:
198:
133:
70:
534:
Undeterred, Stefani went away and wrote the track ‘The Real Thing’ in the style of New Order, which the band then came and played on.
104:
97:
17:
413:– In one of my sandboxes, I have recently started editing and expanding the article's content to comply with the recommendations of
247:
I am not entirely sure if this song was really released as a promotional single or not, given that Discogs is generally unreliable (
192:
1609:
1278:
532:
sources fall short of what is required to be "independent, non-trivial coverage": only one sentence skimming through is in NME (
512:
Is there a link that verifies this release as a promotional single? I feel like it's pretty much a copy-paste ID from Discogs.
1626:
There seems to be enough to say about it that a stand-alone article is not out of line, and the only reasonable merge target (
1040:– I hope you don't mind that I pinged you, but as the original GAN reviewer of this article, perhaps you'd care to weigh in?
188:
1310:: I honestly do not know about this one. I can understand the argument to redirect this article as it is encouraged to show
118:
114:
1581:
1333:
238:
1730:
40:
1654:
1421:
1366:
1347:
856:
Of course not, but it can be an indication that a song might be notable, something this song really doesn’t have.
520:
is an unreliable source. I'm also seeing sources used from "Gay City News" and "PopCrush" which are not reliable (
458:
1628:
1380:
880:
811:
788:
730:
1394:
1289:
The bulk of the expansion is from album reviews, to note. (I am not dismissing the three sources above though)
1094:
204:
1592:
Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether the article should either be kept or redirected.
976:, then each and every track deserves an article?). Just to note, a single release does not grant notability.
1650:
961:
564:
1417:
1389:
490:
708:
I appreciate your efforts in expanding the article, but I still have some concerns regarding notability.
1726:
1637:
1362:
1343:
1222:
36:
1473:
1006:
comment, I do not think and have never thought that one source equates to notability. I'm saying that
907:
1605:
1276:
482:
60:
592:
different eras"? I stand my ground when I say that the article should not be deleted or redirected.
560:
521:
1439:
861:
822:
738:
224:
1465:
1456:
792:
493:'s cover of the song, and the song's early development with several other high profile musicians.
414:
252:
1546:
1253:
1139:
1121:
1045:
1027:
946:
893:
842:
694:
597:
498:
422:
1385:
915:
1672:
93:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1725:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1388:, coverage mostly from album reviews, the song has neither charted nor received accolades. --
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1633:
1320:
1241:
1209:
1469:
619:
unless there is evidence of editorial oversight. I do not understand how incorporating the
248:
1597:
1271:
797:
751:
53:
1691:
1566:
1518:
1499:
1294:
1176:
1161:
1102:
1079:
1065:
981:
923:
771:
713:
662:
640:
545:
441:
393:
344:
300:
280:
260:
1435:
995:
857:
817:
734:
474:
1542:
1461:
1249:
1135:
1117:
1041:
1023:
942:
889:
838:
690:
657:
retrospective article is great material to expand a "Production" section of L.A.M.B.
593:
494:
418:
1708:
1668:
1476:
383:
370:
357:
334:
317:
1022:+ VSQ's cover + everything else should be enough to meet any notability concerns.
584:
171:
1472:, the parent of NSONGS, the non-contradictory guideline that is being satisfied.
1316:
1037:
1537:
1455:. I was being neutral because of the multiple redirects here, but I think that
1687:
1562:
1514:
1495:
1290:
1245:
1172:
1157:
1131:
1098:
1075:
1061:
977:
919:
767:
709:
658:
636:
541:
454:
437:
389:
340:
296:
276:
256:
1513:
into taking my side--though I do have quite strong feelings about this one.
1460:
article that is listed at articles for deletion." And as everyone knows: "
85:
Articles for deletion/The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) (2nd nomination)
972:), which I am afraid insufficient, to put it plainly (if you count
1411:
uDiscover Music is an unreliable source since it belongs to UMG.
1721:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1584:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1336:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1116:
reach on this article, and I don't think that is reasonable.
964:
helpful. Aside from album reviews, I am seeing two sources (
585:
seems to employ several editors with professional experience
1134:– I can upload it, but I think you are asking a lot of me.
368:
I've also dropped a note on the GA project's talkpage too.
884:. I don't think Discogs is useless but even it only has
80:
Articles for deletion/The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)
764:
I will accept the Interscope liner notes on good faith.
167:
163:
159:
837:
A song does not need to chart in order to be notable.
223:
733:
Only real notability evidence is some album reviews.
273:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
1595:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1342:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
237:
1561:information site for this song has a "Draft" tag.
791:A limited release promo single that doesn’t meet
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1733:). No further edits should be made to this page.
916:"Poker Face", another single from the same label
795:is certainly not fit for an article, GA or not.
291:Note: This discussion has been included in the
271:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1361:due to Carbrera's demonstration of notability.
612:I will accept the CD liner notes on good faith
315:The GA status would suggest it meets WP:GNG.
8:
125:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
635:sources are weak for a standalone article.
1707:per how arguments have been made above. ─
293:list of Music-related deletion discussions
290:
270:
489:). Other recently added sources discuss
77:
533:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1270:following improvements by Carbrera.
479:article about the song's development
471:track-by-track revisit with Stefani
134:The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)
71:The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)
24:
110:Introduction to deletion process
1:
1571:03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
1551:20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
1523:17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
1504:17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
1485:16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
1444:22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
1426:23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1400:10:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1371:22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1352:22:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1325:19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1299:05:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
1281:18:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1258:17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1233:17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1181:02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
1166:02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
1144:16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1126:16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1107:16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1084:16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1070:16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1050:15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
1032:15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
986:15:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
951:15:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
928:05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
898:05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
866:18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
847:15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
829:04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
802:03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
776:02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
755:19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
743:14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
718:04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
699:03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
667:04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
645:04:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
602:15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
550:04:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
503:03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
446:04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
398:04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
1244:– This article has received
906:Now that I noticed from the
576:, so I have removed it, but
427:14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
377:15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
364:15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
349:13:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
324:11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
305:10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
285:10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
265:10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
1434:Sounds like the best idea.
100:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1750:
1246:over 23,000 views, not 500
580:is not listed at RSMUSIC.
1714:18:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
1696:01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
1677:19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
1659:03:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
1642:00:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
1629:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
1617:00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
1381:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
881:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
812:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
789:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
731:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
65:00:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
1723:Please do not modify it.
1095:Gwen Stefani discography
32:Please do not modify it.
76:AfDs for this article:
491:Vitamin String Quartet
653:On another note, the
98:Articles for deletion
1590:Relisting comment:
1651:The Ultimate Boss
1619:
1418:MarioSoulTruthFan
1354:
1231:
1012:Into the Pop Void
623:information into
582:Into the Pop Void
516:may be okay, but
485:Into the Pop Void
307:
287:
115:Guide to deletion
105:How to contribute
1741:
1711:
1615:
1613:
1600:
1594:
1587:
1585:
1482:
1479:
1397:
1392:
1363:Vaticidalprophet
1344:Vaticidalprophet
1341:
1339:
1337:
1230:
1227:
1219:
1216:
1213:
800:
387:
373:
360:
338:
320:
242:
241:
227:
175:
157:
95:
56:
34:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1731:deletion review
1709:
1620:
1614:
1603:
1598:
1596:
1580:
1578:
1480:
1477:
1395:
1390:
1355:
1332:
1330:
1223:
1220:
1214:
1211:
908:Discogs release
796:
381:
371:
358:
332:
318:
184:
148:
132:
129:
92:
89:
74:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1747:
1745:
1736:
1735:
1717:
1716:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1680:
1679:
1661:
1644:
1602:
1593:
1588:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1555:
1554:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1507:
1506:
1488:
1487:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1429:
1428:
1402:
1373:
1340:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1284:
1283:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1236:
1235:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1168:
1148:
1147:
1129:
1110:
1109:
1087:
1086:
1072:
1054:
1053:
1035:
989:
988:
955:
954:
931:
930:
901:
900:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
851:
850:
832:
831:
804:
781:
780:
779:
778:
758:
757:
745:
723:
722:
721:
720:
703:
702:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
648:
647:
606:
605:
553:
552:
507:
506:
449:
448:
431:
430:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
352:
351:
327:
326:
309:
308:
288:
245:
244:
181:
128:
127:
122:
112:
107:
90:
88:
87:
82:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1746:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1611:
1607:
1601:
1591:
1586:
1583:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:Rule of thumb
1458:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1393:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1338:
1335:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1226:
1218:
1217:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
999:
993:
992:
991:
990:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:WP:SONGTRIVIA
959:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
935:
934:
933:
932:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
878:
875:
874:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
834:
833:
830:
827:
826:
825:
821:
820:
814:
813:
808:
805:
803:
799:
794:
790:
786:
783:
782:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
760:
759:
756:
753:
749:
746:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
724:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
684:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
617:
613:
610:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
590:
586:
583:
579:
578:Gay City News
575:
570:
566:
565:WP:ALBUMAVOID
562:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
486:
480:
478:
472:
470:
464:
462:
456:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
408:
399:
395:
391:
385:
380:
379:
378:
375:
374:
367:
366:
365:
362:
361:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
339:Why exactly?
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
321:
314:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
240:
236:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
190:
187:
186:Find sources:
182:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
102:
101:
99:
94:
86:
83:
81:
78:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1722:
1720:
1704:
1663:
1646:
1627:
1623:
1589:
1579:
1533:
1452:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1379:
1375:
1358:
1331:
1311:
1307:
1272:
1267:
1224:
1210:
1205:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
997:
973:
969:
965:
938:
911:
885:
879:
876:
823:
818:
816:
810:
806:
784:
763:
747:
726:
686:
654:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:(to note, I
611:
588:
581:
577:
573:
568:
537:
529:
525:
517:
513:
484:
476:
468:
460:
410:
369:
356:
316:
312:
246:
234:
228:
220:
213:
207:
201:
195:
185:
91:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1312:significant
1242:Lil-unique1
910:, it says "
798:D💘ggy54321
211:free images
1634:XOR'easter
1396:yoursmile!
1273:Ritchie333
561:WP:RSMUSIC
536:) and the
522:WP:RSMUSIC
1727:talk page
1649:per XOR.
1466:WP:NSONGS
1457:WP:NMUSIC
1436:Foxnpichu
1413:Billboard
1020:Billboard
1004:Billboard
974:Billboard
886:cover art
858:Foxnpichu
793:WP:NSONGS
735:Foxnpichu
655:Billboard
538:Billboard
530:Billboard
469:Billboard
415:WP:NSONGS
253:WP:NSONGS
37:talk page
1729:or in a
1710:The Aafī
1610:ICE CUBE
1582:Relisted
1543:Carbrera
1405:Redirect
1386:WP:NSONG
1384:- fails
1376:Redirect
1334:Relisted
1250:Carbrera
1206:Redirect
1136:Carbrera
1118:Carbrera
1042:Carbrera
1024:Carbrera
1008:Idolator
970:Pop Void
966:Idolator
943:Carbrera
939:L.A.M.B.
890:Heartfox
877:Redirect
839:Carbrera
807:Redirect
785:Redirect
752:K. Peake
727:Redirect
691:Carbrera
633:the Void
629:Idolator
625:L.A.M.B.
594:Carbrera
589:L.A.M.B.
574:PopCrush
518:Pop Void
514:Idolator
495:Carbrera
487:anecdote
461:Idolator
419:Carbrera
178:View log
119:glossary
39:or in a
1669:Rlendog
1599:ASTIG😎
1534:Comment
1409:Comment
1308:Comment
1215:Unique1
1000:article
524:). The
411:Comment
384:Lugnuts
372:Lugnuts
359:Lugnuts
335:Lugnuts
319:Lugnuts
217:WP refs
205:scholar
151:protect
146:history
96:New to
1470:WP:GNG
1391:Ashley
1317:Aoba47
1038:Aoba47
481:, and
463:review
249:WP:RSP
189:Google
155:delete
57:Earwig
1606:ICE T
1481:hotch
996:this
912:Draft
616:still
483:this
475:this
467:this
459:this
232:JSTOR
193:books
172:views
164:watch
160:links
16:<
1705:Keep
1692:talk
1673:talk
1664:Keep
1655:talk
1647:Keep
1638:talk
1624:Keep
1567:talk
1547:talk
1538:Here
1519:talk
1500:talk
1474:(CC)
1453:Keep
1440:talk
1422:talk
1407:and
1367:talk
1359:Keep
1348:talk
1321:talk
1295:talk
1268:Keep
1254:talk
1225:Talk
1212:Lil-
1177:talk
1162:talk
1140:talk
1122:talk
1103:talk
1080:talk
1066:talk
1046:talk
1028:talk
982:talk
968:and
947:talk
924:talk
894:talk
862:talk
843:talk
772:talk
748:Keep
739:talk
714:talk
695:talk
687:Keep
663:talk
641:talk
631:and
598:talk
563:and
546:talk
528:and
499:talk
442:talk
423:talk
394:talk
345:talk
313:Keep
301:talk
281:talk
261:talk
225:FENS
199:news
168:logs
142:talk
138:edit
61:talk
50:keep
1378:to
1221:-{
1016:NME
998:NME
918:).
809:to
787:to
729:to
621:NME
569:NME
526:NME
477:NME
239:TWL
176:– (
55:The
1694:)
1688:HĐ
1675:)
1657:)
1640:)
1608:•
1569:)
1563:HĐ
1549:)
1536:–
1521:)
1515:HĐ
1502:)
1496:HĐ
1478:Tb
1442:)
1424:)
1369:)
1350:)
1323:)
1297:)
1291:HĐ
1256:)
1248:.
1229:}-
1179:)
1173:HĐ
1164:)
1158:HĐ
1142:)
1132:HĐ
1124:)
1105:)
1099:HĐ
1097:.
1082:)
1076:HĐ
1068:)
1062:HĐ
1048:)
1030:)
1018:+
1014:+
1010:+
984:)
978:HĐ
949:)
926:)
920:HĐ
896:)
864:)
845:)
774:)
768:HĐ
741:)
716:)
710:HĐ
697:)
665:)
659:HĐ
643:)
637:HĐ
600:)
548:)
542:HĐ
501:)
473:,
465:,
455:HĐ
444:)
438:HĐ
425:)
396:)
390:HĐ
347:)
341:HĐ
303:)
297:HĐ
295:.
283:)
277:HĐ
275:.
263:)
257:HĐ
255:.
219:)
170:|
166:|
162:|
158:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
63:)
1690:(
1671:(
1653:(
1636:(
1612:)
1604:(
1565:(
1553:.
1545:(
1517:(
1498:(
1438:(
1420:(
1365:(
1346:(
1319:(
1293:(
1260:.
1252:(
1175:(
1160:(
1146:.
1138:(
1128:.
1120:(
1101:(
1078:(
1064:(
1052:.
1044:(
1034:.
1026:(
980:(
953:.
945:(
922:(
892:(
860:(
849:.
841:(
824:Ø
819:N
770:(
737:(
712:(
701:.
693:(
669:`
661:(
639:(
604:.
596:(
544:(
505:.
497:(
440:(
429:.
421:(
392:(
386::
382:@
343:(
337::
333:@
299:(
279:(
259:(
243:)
235:·
229:·
221:·
214:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
191:(
183:(
180:)
174:)
136:(
121:)
117:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.