Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (Lady GaGa song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dance-pop (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 18 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (Lady GaGa song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Uncharted, uncovered and has won no awards; how it is notable? It is the same as LoveGame. Renanx3 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.Offcial release-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/(as promo single--i guess) 2.Music video-http://www.imeem.com/people/1mLPYH/music/4YqrZUPx/lady_gaga_beautiful_dirty_rich/ 3.Charted-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_GaGa_discography UK 120 Third party sources-http://www.last.fm/music/Lady+GaGa/Beautiful%2C+Dirty%2C+Rich for releaseDance-pop (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable>been charted UK-120
BDR has an officail release: source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. LoveGame hasnt but when it does it will have its own article.

I found athird party source to verify its chart placing in the uk at 89- source http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php. I know think there is more then engough evoidence to say it complioes with WP:NSONGS.Dance-pop (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have justified why and how it complise with WP:NSONGS. Why do you disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talkcontribs) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because it lacks the non-trivial, independant, third-party coverage by reliable sources required by the general notability guidelines and NSONGS. Just that something is shown to exist doesn't make it notable. There's a difference between WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)re[reply]
disagree with your statement, this is about notability, and it is notable and has been verified by mulitple sources, there are many third party sources all over the net to verify it. Last Fm for example. It does comply with WP:V and WP:N, I have checked.Dance-pop (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect fails WP:NSONGS. Third party notability only asserts its release for the promotional purposes for a television series. Also, song informations asserted by the artiset regarding its development is there for all the songs from the corressponding album, hence that information is also not in account. As for charting, there was no official release only it charted based on downloads. Hence redirect. "Legolas" (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offical Release-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. Promo single therefore bypasses third notability. Based on downloads only--makes it more signifcant> notable. Millions of people would have seen the promo for the tv seris>huge promotion for artist.Dance-pop (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offical Release is here go to the SOURCE-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. Promo single therefore bypasses third notability. Based on downloads only--makes it more signifcant> notable. Millions of people would have seen the promo for the tv seris>huge promotion for artist. Here is a SOURCE for chart ranking it went to 89 in the UK based on DOWNLOADS- http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php. Third party sources-http://www.last.fm/music/Lady+GaGa/Beautiful%2C+Dirty%2C+Rich and http://music.vodafone.co.nz/ft/track/lady_gaga/beautiful__dirty__rich/15190668/. Therfore it compies with WP:NSONGS.Dance-pop (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There are two articles for BDR-heres anther-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful,_Dirty,_Rich--This one has less sources.Dance-pop (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]