Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Katy Perry songs


 * 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, and I see none forthcoming right now. I suspect that a more general policy needs to be enacted. The strongest argument in favor of deletion is that it violates WP:FORK; the strongest argument to keep is the fact that she is # 14 in number of # 1 hits. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Katy Perry songs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unneeded WP:CFORK list. This is basically a rehash of a discography and this is not something to be merged into a WP:FL. Further, there are WP:OR issues with all of the "unreleased" tracks. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No need for this list - she's not the Beatles, she's a young performer with a handful of "hits". A list of all of her recorded songs is not-notable whatsoever at this point.  At some point when her catalogue meets that of Michael Jackson, Dire Straits, Garth Brooks ... maybe, this this is merely a list of any and all tracks whether notable or not ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She's not the Beatles, but she's pretty big. She's had six US main chart #1 hits. That's more than the Beach Boys. More than Brittney Spears. Twice the Black-Eyed Peas, 75% of the Rolling Stones. It's more than ABBA, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, The Police, Van Halen, and Guns N' Roses -- combined. It's more than a handful of artists have achieved. She's also topped the chart in the UK and many other countries, usually more than once. And that's not considering the singles that made the top ten but not #1. And she's new. It's probably only going to get better (or, if you don't like her, worse) and the article, if deleted, is likely only have to be re-created later. (Also, not sure what you mean by "hits". They're not "hits", they're hits. They're main-chart #1's, and she's already got half as many as Michael Jackson had, and of course a lot more than Dire Straits or Garth Brooks.) Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Since you listing artists, Christina Aguilera,Talib Kweli, Kasabian, The White Stripes, Owl City, and Jonas Brothers. Yes, I know "Other things exist" isn't a reason, but rather that someone with the number of awards and nominations she has, would have the song list rise to the level of notability.Naraht (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This builds out of a discussion at the help desk. At that discussion there was talk about whether such a merge should happen.  I looked and thought that it was, at the least, worth a discussion, so I tagged the articles.  That all said, I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on this AFD.  Other than to say it would likely be about as neat and clear of a solution to the situation as a merge would be.  (Obviously, some think the merge idea is not itself neat and clean.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is a merge inappropriate, it is in direct violation of FL and Discography guidelines: a discography is not a listing of songs, it is a listing of released/charted albums and singles. A discography is: "A table-based list of official releases, in chronological order from earliest to latest." This list being merged into a discography is in a direct violation of DISCOGSTYLE - "Unofficial releases of any kind", "Leaked material", "Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover" ect ect.. So again, a merge is not valid. -  (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Moving myself to the Delete column from the Neutral column. The two articles are highly duplicative of each other.  And this one appears to me to be the inferior one, for the reasons detailed above by (CK)Lakeshade and Bwilkins.  My ultimate concern is handling the double-article situation, and deletion of this one works towards that end just as well as a merge would. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Many of the songs in the List of Katy Perry songs article are not present in the Katy Perry article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep seems like a reasonable list and is, by necessity, more complete than either the category or discography article would be. Since the category only includes songs which have Wikipedia articles and the Discogs article would only contain released albums and singles, I can't find any reason to oppose the existance of a list of all Katy Perry songs.  Any issues with referencing and OR for unreleased songs can be handled via normal editing, the subject seems like a perfectly reasonable list.  -- Jayron  32  01:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's highly notable. According to my count, 13 artists have more US #1's than Perry (that's covering the last 57 years) and most of those don't have a lot more. She's had more US #1's than The Eagles, the Beach Boys, Lady GaGa, Jennifer Lopez, The Monkees, Eminem, Diddy, Simon & Garfunkle/Paul Simon, Britney Spears, Donna Summer, yadda yadda. Granted US #1's aren't everything (but she also has hit #1 in the UK, Germany, and many other countries), but it's a pretty big something for starters. So if musicians rate "List of songs by XYZ" (and there are many such articles) she probably would be one of them. So if we want to delete all the "List of songs by XYZ" as a class, that'd be OK (and this should be recast as a multiple nom), but if not, then keep this one. Also, nom, come on: there is one unreleased song on the list, and it should probably be removed, but that's a lot different that deleting the article. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A reasonable content fork, that is well-referenced at this time. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayron32's reasoning in particular. If we are to have "Lists of ______ songs", this one seems notable enough, is fairly well-referenced, and contains songs not covered in the artist's discography or category. That said, I agree with the idea that unsourced (or, more accurately, unsourceable) "unreleased" tracks are probably best removed.  Gongshow  Talk 08:29, 12 January 2012 (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.