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


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (Lady GaGa song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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)
 * Delete Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. No charts, no official release.  Paul75 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It has an official release check- http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/-the video makes it notable. LoveGame was notable, but in th end...was deleted> this should of changed it because it was notable> had natinol chart postion--complys with [|WP:NSONGS] Dance-pop (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-charting song, no claims to notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I say to keep it. although mi opinion doesnt really count, im just an Ip. Reason-Notable-because of official release, see other keep refrence.60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) — 60.234.151.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This vote should be discounted as a likely sock of User:Dance-pop. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but like a song and not like a single. Promo single. Like Radar by Britney Spears.--Aaa16 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * It does comply with WP:NSONGS


 * Redirect. Along with Beautiful, Dirty, Rich to The Fame (album) until it is notable. Diverse  Mentality  19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is notable>been charted UK-120


 * Keep. I say keep it. It has its own music video, it charted in the UK, and it has a cover art. Like Aaa16 said, it's the same with Radar by Britney. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We should keep it but instead of having it under singles we could have it under other songs. For example Britney Spears' song And Then We Kiss is a promo single but it still has it's own article. AllyE1991 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC).
 * BDR has an officail release: source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. LoveGame hasnt but when it does it will have its own article.


 * Keep. We should keep it. It was released as a promotional single for digital download therefore it is eligible. It has a music video and it has charted in the UK, that says someting! I find it necessary and it would be foolish for this article to be deleted --Youstinklmao (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Delete fails WP:NSONGS. Themfromspace (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have justified why and how it complise with WP:NSONGS. Why do you disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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)


 * 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. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

I agree with dance-pop. It's classified as a release on Lady GaGa's official site. Youstinklmao (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * I redirected the second article to the album page untill and unless the discussion on this one is resolved. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I looked over all the sources posted by dance-pop and I'm not convinced any of them meet WP:RS. One of them is even a wikipedia article! Themfromspace (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the album's page. The song has started charting in the UK, although not inside the top 75. --Efe (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but like song--79.36.251.42 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) — 79.36.251.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.