Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (3rd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Overall, consensus at this AFD discussion is for Keep, with strong consensus that the subject matter passes WP:NOTE, with coverage in multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Freakum Dress
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before, and deleted twice before. It has also been speedied twice. My last speedy (as a G4 repost) was contested, so here we go on a third AFD. First, this article fails WP:NSONGS. It has not charted. It has not been covered by multiple notable artists. It has not won any awards. It is a run-of-the-mill album track from one of Beyonce's albums. It is precisely the kind of song that WP:NSONGS intends when it says "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The references used attempt to shore up some kind of independent notability are weak at best. http://www.amazon.com/Freakum-Dress/dp/B00137OIDY shows that you can buy the song as a track from the album (true for most album tracks). http://music.aol.com/song/freakum-dress/8760153 shows that the track is available for sale. http://www.allmusic.com/song/freakum-dress-t15815692 shows that it is an album track. http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviews/archive/2006/09/20/18134780.aspx mentions a contributor, but not what he contributed (beyond "his brand of modern funk"). http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/beyonce-b-day/ is an album review that mentions the track. http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0075650 shows that the sheet music is available for sale, like nearly all Beyonce songs. http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/videos_07/news_feature_040207/index2.jhtml documents the existence of the video. http://www.metrolyrics.com/freakum-dress-lyrics-beyonce-knowles.html is a copyright violation of the lyrics. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1516025,00.html mentions that Jay-Z contributes to the album, including this track. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/beyonce_shows_rage_and_range_on_new_release/ is an album review. http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/beyonce-bday/939 is an album review. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/arts/04choi.html?_r=2 is an album review. http://www.webcitation.org/5rW98J9Id is an album review. http://web.archive.org/web/20071223104612/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/beyonce/albums/album/11463836/review/11736807/bday is an album review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq0iUS_jdY4 is a copyright violation. So there we have it: two copyright violations, album reviews, and documentation of its existence as an album track. Nothing that makes it reasonable to override the standard advice of "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.". Because of the history of constant recreation of this article by fans, and the fact that it contains no useful material that isn't already in the album article, I want this version deleted, and a protected redirect installed in its place to prevent further edit warring over it. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that they are in the wikiproject of Knowles, it is not a canvass, just because they are in the wikiproject does not mean that they are watching the wikiproject. Either way, neither of those users have commented, so there's no issue. Tb hotch Talk and  C.
 * "fighting for the article" makes this a clear canvassing violation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per Kww's analysis of the sources. There simply isn't enough non-trivial coverage to make an article. If redirected, it will still be edit-warred over; if made into a lock redirect, someone will rebuild the article at a different title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If we want a protected redirect, then what on earth's the point of deleting it first?— S Marshall  T/C 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, TenPoundHammer's comment doesn't make any sense to me either, given the content of the nomination. Maybe I'm having a dumb day.— S Marshall  T/C 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're having a dumb day. I'm saying that a protected redirect would not be a viable alternative to deletion, because it would almost invariably lead to a slobbering fanboy re-creating the article's content at a different title and/or bawwwwwwing on the talk page of the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current history includes four separate previously deleted versions, for one thing. I restored everything to give people an opportunity to peruse it. There's wouldn't be any valuable text under a protected redirect, so deletion is the appropriate action. It wouldn't be required if people didn't keep resurrecting the article despite contravention of existing guidelines. I'll agree that TPH seems to have lost his way somewhere in the middle of his original comment, but his clarification is on-target. Keeping the history would make it easier for people to circumvent the redirect through cut-and-paste.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Keep  Okay for first things, i didn't realize this article was deleted twice and speedy deleted twice (THATS A LOT!), so if anything i suggest redirecting, so if anyone in the future was to attempt to restore it they would see in the history it has already been done and to not attempt.


 * That being said, i really don't think the article should be deleted/redirected at all! The critical reception, although taken from album reviews, is still critical reception about the song itself! ONE comment or a WHOLE paragraph is still critical reception. And in the critical reception, they discuss the songs composure! And this isn't just any regular song from the album, the song saw a music video release through the "B'Day Anthology". This isn't just some scantly article put together for the heck of it, the article has more coverage than some GA articles (example: "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" "My Only Wish (This Year)"). And even more coverage could be added through the performance of the song during live shows! I understand the two copyright violations, and agree that they should be deleted. The "Musicnotes" website gives a preview of the official music sheet, which gives a good idea of the composition of the song! and the other refs i've discussed already. The songs article should stay, as the coverage is perfectly fine and the song is more notable that song GA Article and official single releases! It's shenanigans to delete this!!! Theuhohreo (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Theuhohreo's statements. It's not just some "album track." Besides, WP:IAR, it's a great addition to wikipedia and should not be kept back for any reason. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR doesn't give you carte blanche to say that an article should be kept because you think it's useful or about something you like. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Kww, I've no problem whatsoever with the protected redirect. Deleting the history seems pointlessly destructive to me, because if there really is an endless stream of bad faith users choking at the leash to circumvent the redirect, then they won't be seriously hampered by the history removal.  Even if you delete the userspace version as well.— S Marshall  T/C 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (later) I'd prefer it if this argument wasn't lost in among the allegations of canvassing and rather weak "keep" arguments that follow. There are "keep" arguments in this debate that deserve little weight, but this is a strong one:-  It is not necessary to delete this article to achieve what the nominator wants.  A protected redirect could be achieved without deleting the history.  See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD for the background.— S Marshall  T/C 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Once again I would like to say that this article still remains a valuable addition to Wikipedia. One must remember that guidelines are GUIDES not rules, you can go out of some of these guides.  This is an example of that situation.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR doesn't give you carte blanche to say that an article should be kept because you think it's useful or about something you like. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not just say that I liked it. But if you would like more detail I will do so.  That album is not just a regular album track, it very much acted as promotion for the album, which is evident with the over 8 mill Youtube views.  I will also continue to stand by statement that these are GUIDES and not RULES, exceptions are inevitable.  The article stands as a valuable piece of information for Wikipedia--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - being 'generally well received by music critics' does not make it pass WP:NSONGS. pablo 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "generally well received by music critics" isn't the debate... coverage is the debate, which this article happens to be more covered and better made (bad english sorry... lololl) than some GA Articles and Single articles on wikipedia. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, Kww nominated the "incorrect version". Check at the history, before its deletion it was 21,189 bytes, it was returned with 10,269 bytes, the rationale of Kww for deletion does not exist anymore, it is now 22,079 bytes. Tb hotch Talk and  C.  21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Agree with Tbhotch. And the article is extremely useful and needed for the song, especially now with the amazing help of Tbhotch! Theuhohreo (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes only shift the sources, but don't introduce better ones:
 * http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2006/08/22/dress-to-impress-86908-17600860/ isn't about the song.
 * http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087041#/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087041 doesn't mention the song.
 * http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208884,00.html doesn't mention the song.
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-08-30-beyonce-bday_x.htm mentions the track, but doesn't say anything concrete about it.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freakum_Dress_%283rd_nomination%29&action=edit&section=1 is an album review, song is in tracklist
 * http://www.prefixmag.com/reviews/beyonce/b-day/15442/ is an album review
 * http://uk.music.ign.com/articles/730/730624p1.html is an album review
 * http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/beyonce_shows_rage_and_range_on_new_release/ is an album review
 * http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/060907/33/20nfi.html is an album review
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/arts/04choi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=music&pagewanted=all is an album review
 * http://top40.about.com/od/albums/fr/beyoncebday.htm is an album review
 * http://top40.about.com/od/bestandworstof2001/tp/bestalbums2006.htm is an album review
 * http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beyonce/AlbumReviews/2006/09/07/1811076-sun.html is an album review
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-04-05-beyonce-video-album_N.htm doesn't mention the song
 * http://www.essence.com/entertainment/hot_topics/jennifer_lopez_beyonce_video.php mentions that the video director also directed the video for "Freakum Dress"
 * http://artisit.wordpress.com/2009/07/ isn't a reliable source, and, if it were, only mentions that the video shows Beyonce doing her hair
 * http://www.nme.com/awards/video/id/p6aAWi-XKH4/search/freakum is about a tour, not the song
 * Nothing there that makes my original nomination invalid.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that will always be "album reviews", never was a single. Selectin a random "album review" the writer gave a song review: and songs like “Freakum Dress” and “Resentment” build two different kinds of overwrought drama. Tb hotch Talk and  C.  21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true: a completely trivial statement about the song of no value whatsoever was included in the album review. You've demonstrated my point.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The album reviews single out "Freakum Dress" at least once! That makes it perfect for critical reception since it discusses the song!!! Theuhohreo (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I as a critic comment ""Freakum Dress" was a bad addition" won't you add it? It's a critic; or ""Freakum Dress" is apropos", it is incorrect?. Those are critic of the song not THE album. Also, you argue that some sources never mentioned the song. Taking Fox source, which "doesn't mention the song." It "doesn't mention the song" as simple as it is not used for mention the song. it is used for the comment "She and Harrison had previously collaborated on her 2003 single "Crazy in Love" (2003).[3]". So before try to find problems to sources, check what are sourcing those links. Tb hotch Talk and  C.  21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that none of them are saying something unusual or noteworthy that would make it reasonable to override WP:NSONGS. You keep telling people to ignore it, but you don't have any argument that explains why anyone should ignore it.
 * Nowhere in this AFD I commented "Ignore Kevin (if you are Kww)" or "ignore this AFD he is crazy and WP:Pointing Wikipedia", even I'd never commented "WP:IAR", nowhere in this AFD. Tb hotch Talk and  C.  23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Tbhotch has gone ahead and added in the missing information, which seems to support even more the notability of the song. True, it is not a single, however, the fact that it has a music video due to the re-release of the expanded edition of the album, it is essentially a single for that. For this reason, and for the references used in the article, I feel that it should be kept. Silver  seren C 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no harm in keeping this article, and sufficient value in it to justify keeping it. (Despite the claims made above, IAR does indeed provide a reason to vote "keep" on something that would normally not be kept if, in the editors' opinion, the article is useful or improves the encylopedia.  Notability guidelines cannot trump a policy, and IAR is a policy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unsure I'd say delete because it hasn't charted, but on the other hand, this article is very reliable and has a lot of great content. ℥nding · start 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Meet notability for broad coverage, same views as first Afd. Candy  o32  - Happy New Year :) 21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Undecided, WP:NSONGS states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song doesn't have any of those, and while some people argue that there is lots of coverage I would argue that it is not significant coverage or independent coverage. Independent coverage means coverage from 3rd party sources about the song separate from the album. Use of lots of sources about the album does not make the song notable. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that significant coverage is not a notability criteria... its a requirement for independent articles. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I get a distinction between notability criteria and requirement for independent articles, because wouldn't an subject essentially need to be notable to have an article independent of the parent topic? Candy  o32  - Happy New Year :) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone correct me if I'm wrong but NSONGS says... Notability aside, there should be significant coverage from independent reliable sources to make a detailed article. That means then when creating an article on a song editors must consider: 1) is it notable? (charts? awards? covers?) 2) does it have significant coverage? Notice how the to elements of NSONGS are described separately. Nowhere does the page suggest that lots of coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's mentioned as a minimum requirement. To pass WP:NSONGS, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as a minimum standard. All the additional tests are things that have to be true after basic notability has been established. The way I usually describe it is that WP:N and WP:V describe when it is permissible to have an article. WP:NSONGS is about whether it's a good idea.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect Pretty much all the coverage of the song is part of coverage of the entire album. Give it its own section at the album's article, any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I strongly believe that if this article were to go under GA review, it would pass! I know I've stated this before, multiple times, but; This article has more information and importance than most GA Articles and Official Singles that are on this site! Theuhohreo (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Just so we are clear, i was asked to comment here. With that said it was a neutral comment asking for opinion, wasnt a canvas violation. Okay, so back to this article, WP:NSONG has been cited for the deletion, although i agree with this rule i also disagree due to inconsistency on wikipedia. What i mean is, according to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Charting is not always a necessity in establishing notability, in this case, this is a well written article that has received a fair amount of coverage. Im leaning more towards keep but not enough to say keep. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article rather clearly now satisfies the GNG. Both significant and independent coverage have been established in the current text. Some of the comments appear to rest on a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of "independent" coverage. As WP:Independent sources sets forth, echoing WP:V] and [[WP:RS, "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a professional review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release."  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It possibly passes the GNG. I would argue that a lot of the mentions are passing mentions, but at least there can be an honest debate about that. Can you tell me why you didn't discuss WP:NSONGS, which is the relevant topic-specific guideline? It's more stringent than the GNG.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I don't believe that NSONGS (or any of the other specialized guidelines) are exclusionary, to the extent that they would override the GNG. NSONGS is brief, informally phrased, and focused on a narrow (if prominent) niche in the commercial music market. Those aren't the only kind of songs that should be notable, and doesn't represent the broad range of song articles that exist (and therefore, the in-practice community consensus). There's a large swath of songwriters with important work that won't fall under songs but nonetheless is generally regarded as influential and satisfies the GNG: later Dylan, much Ellington, much of the Velvet Underground, a significant amount of Jimi Hendrix . . . . There was a Bruce Springsteen song, whose name escapes me, about a notorious NYC police shooting, which received substantial TV and news coverage based only on his live performances of it, before he'd even recorded it. Even footnote 5 to NSONGS discusses notable songs which don't fit into its specific pigeonholes, and shows the GNG governs songs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:NSONGS more closely. It states at the outset that you have to pass WP:N first: it says that "all articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". The exclusion for footnote 5 is for songs that preceded the era of electronic recording, which certainly doesn't include this one. Reading WP:NSONGS as an inclusionary guideline simply doesn't work logically: any song that fails WP:N automatically fails WP:NSONGS, so it can't include anything that WP:N excludes. It only works as an exclusionary guideline: WP:N establishes the presumption, and WP:NSONGS rebuts it and provides more tests. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Is "Freakum Dress" one of them? I haven't seen anyone argue why it would be beyond "it had a video", which certainly doesn't cut it in my book.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect - could not find evidence that there is coverage (charting/cover versions...) independent of the album. A whole lot of puffery for one song.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral First, I got two messages – one is already pointed out here and other was a neutral message asking for opinion . I am neutral to this per Lakeshade. Novice7  |  Talk  03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading&mdash;particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Notability (music) states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging&mdash;if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the version Kww nominated for deletion was only 10 kb long. Mine was 23 kb long. He must have got some confusion. See this. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the version in place at the time I nominated it. {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freakum_Dress_(3rd_nomination)&diff=407344042&oldid=407343739 Here I went through your additions and showed that they were still inadequate]. I really detest AFDs like this one, where people don't bother to read the relevant guidelines and argue from them. Why do you think this song should get an article even though it clearly doesn't meet WP:NSONGS? It's OK to believe that, but nothing you have said explains why you believe that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * G4 cannot be used as a shield. And i do not consider it as "inadequate". It deserves an article because of what i posted above. Please read it. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are changing your vote from Keep to Strong keep, then it might be a good idea to strike your original vote so that it is not counted accidentally. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason given by the nominator seems to be the perceived lack of notability. Wikipedia's guideline on notability states that an article is presumed to be notable if it has been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. The article in question references multiple such sources, such as the Daily Record and the New York Times. Therefore the article is notable per WP:GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (response to ) According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines..." (emphasis mine). Thus notability may be achieved either through WP:GNG or the subject-specific guideline (or that is what Wikipedia:Notability seems to suggest). Otherwise, a professor who passes Notability (people) but fails Notability (academics) would be considered non-notable just because he is an academic. There does not seem to be any "do-not-include" criteria at WP:NSONG, and there are no statements in NSONG suggesting that the consensus is to ignore the either...or implication from WP:N for articles about music. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to avoid more discussion on this page, because it's starting to appear as if I am badgering, but no. WP:NSONGS functions as an exclusionary criteria. It sets, as a minimum bar "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It then sets further criteria that need to be met before an article should be written about an individual song. This song meets none of those additional criteria. The guidance in WP:NSONGS rebuts the initial presumption in WP:N, and sets further standards. This is basically to prevent us from having articles about every album track, and to avoid having an inconsistent state where people can generally find trivial passing mentions of tracks by recent extremely popular artists, thus potentially justifying an article on every track by Beyonce or Lady Gaga, where such is not possible for the majority of still quite notable performers.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a specific notability guideline for music because songs and albums can often pick up media attention for lots of different reasons. WP:NSONGS clearly states that shows that songs are only notable where they have charted, received awards or been covered by multiple artists. This leads me to the conclusion that songs have to earn notability. However every keep vote here is suggesting that that the song has inherited notability because it was mentioned in album reviews. Subjects cannot inherit notability from a parent subject. They most be notable in their own right. I stand by my original comments that the song has received very little significant coverage as a separate body of work from the parent album. I get the impression that people are under the impression that if an article about any song can be written it should be written. - That's a very slippery sloap to head towards. I'm now leaning towards delete. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Striked Cprice's vote as he's already made his keep vote and those comments b4. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, lol, I was told it was a new page! Sorry for the mix up, I deleted it. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lil Unique1, it's got to go. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to Merge/Redirect to B'Day per Kww and the editing policy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning towards Delete - Sorry, but I still can't see the necessity of having this article in existence. Just because something, particularly a song has some information on it and coverage does not make it notable. I can assure you almost nobody has ever heard of this song, I for one was never familiarized with it. While I respect the fact that it indeed is a nice article, with an informative background, I don't find it necessary. I honestly am quite annoyed at the creation of all the new song pages that are unnecessary. Additionally, whether or not it has sufficient information, remember, it never charted anywhere. If anything, Merge with the already enormous and substantial album.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Joshua Issac. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just hope that all of you who are learning towards delete have at least read what i wrote. If not, read it again. And i hope you know which article was deleted. It was not mine and that's why G4 was being used as a purpose of deleting it. And how many songs do you think have so much information. Please see my reason for keeping the article. I have also cited a valid source.  Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jivesh, I G4'd your version because none of the changes addressed the reasons the article was originally deleted. When Theuhohreo created a new version, I took it to AFD because my G4 on your version had caused so much controversy. Neither your version nor his address the reasons that the article was deleted in the previous AFD. It wasn't deleted in the previous AFD for lack of sourcing, it was deleted because it's a topic that Wikipedia should not have articles about, per WP:NSONGS. It really doesn't matter which version I G4'd or which version I put an AFD tag on, because the question isn't the quality of the article, it's the suitability of the topic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, the canvassing and the repeated re-creation cannot obscure the fact that this is a song of surpassing unimportance that nobody other than hardcore Beyonce fans is ever likely to find of any interest at all. Don't they have their own wiki? Tis is right up there with articles on individual Ewoks. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear to you Guy, i created this page only once and when i created it using my sandbox, i did not even know that this page had been created in the past. It is only when i published the article in Wikipedia that i found out about its previous existence. Moreover, it does not depend who is a fan of Beyonce. There are 11 members in the group and only four of them have commented, among which one said that he was neutral. So please avoid me these types of comments. One last, Beyonce has so many songs, but i chose to create this one only because it got promotion independent of the album and there is a lot of detailed information about this song about recording, production and live performances ++ its theme concept and video on reliable sources. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Users "CallMeNathan", "Kww" and "Ten Pound Hammer". I fail to see how this song is notable. Yes, the page has sources but this song was never released as a single, never charted, and was never issued a cover. Fails WP:NSONGS. —  Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Tbhotch. --Ahmetyal 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Personally I think that the "needs to chart" and other matter of WP:NSONGS is crap. This article meets the WP:GNG. In spite of WP:OTHERCRAP, see "Suga Mama" and "Slug", neither of which have charted or meet any of the NSONGS junk, but both are GAs (and the latter has been to FAC). This is a great, informative addition to Wikipedia and it would be a shame to see it deleted IMHO. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Also see "My Only Wish (This Year)" and "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", they are perfect examples of songs that are allowed pages, and they didn't even get a music video like Freakum Dress!!! 74.72.160.180 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: the song has garnered attention aside from the album, including interviews with Knowles, and an official music video release! That IS single attention aside from the album! Although it has not charted (which seems to be the main point), it does stand notably on its own, from the album. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. This is why i said the track got promotion independent of the album. Beyonce explained the song's concept to Daily Record . Read the article. You will all see. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Per WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Which basically means this also passes WP:NSONGS!


 * Keep Basically per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I agree that the coverage is sufficient to pass the general notability guideline and as such is fine to have it's own article. The subject specific guideline cannot and should not exclude articles that pass the general notability guideline and there has never been consensus to make them do so. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.