Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (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. Though there was a strong consensus towards Keep, it seems likely at the least that this would not be deleted, but possibly a more prolonged merge discussion could continue. This can take place at the article's talk page, and if needed, editors can pursue further dispute resolution steps there, RFC, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Monster (Lady Gaga song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NSONGS: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". There is hardly enough verifiable material for this to warrant a separate article.

In this digital era where non-singles can chart off of high downloads or airplay, I really think the music notability rules should be altered, but this is not the place to discuss it. Basically, not every random non-single that charts needs to have an article. I don't see what's here that couldn't be present in The Fame Monster. – Chase  ( talk ) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Fame Monster . Looking at the content that's properly sourced, I agree that it could be merged into the album article.--Michig (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm fairly neutral on this now that it has been expanded and sourced better - I think it should be merged or kept. More details on the songs on the album could easily be added to The Fame Monster using the detailed album reviews, and the relevant detail covered there, but it's marginal whether this would make that article too long, so I have no real objection to this remaining a standalone article.--Michig (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - Agreed with nominator comments. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep* I do agree, not every song needs an article, BUT this song has had the same amount of promotion as what DITD did, with live performances, and it was kept. It's blank now, but if you add to it and fix it, we can have a very good constructed article.--Jackex56 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dance in the Dark had a lot of information about it and it is currently at GA status. There is hardly any information here. Add to it right now and maybe I'll change my mind. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe there will be enough info soon to make this article a good one. She has had 3 different live performances of the song (that I know of), and there may be more soon. She has performed on Oprah, Monster Ball Tour 1 and 2. There was also a NZ promo-single last week on iTunes. It charted high because of it. It has notability because it's been receiving airplay on NZ radio stations. It has more notability as a song than "Speechless", and with time, it would become a good article.--Morgan3136 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When that information is available, you may have a valid point. However, is the info available right now? No. Therefore it is not notable right now. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The above comment displays my view on the subject. Seeing as Monster has had a individual release (iTunes NZ), unlike Speechless, I think it is somewhat more notable then Speechless. Also had a similar amount of promotion (live Performances), high charts on the NZ charts and other charts, and still managed to peak higher than "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" on the UK charts. It has also been confirmed to be getting radio airplay in NZ.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some references to show that this was released as a single. Charting does not make a song a single. Radio stations can play songs without the label releasing them to radio. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It charted on the UK singles chart, which is based on singles sales, not radio airplay, therefore it must have been released as a single. Not sure how the other charts are determined, but I think in most of Europe radio airplay is not the normal method. JulesH (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - the UK singles chart includes download sales, which includes downloads of album tracks.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is hardly relevant to the deletion discussion, since being released as a single is not a requirement for a song to be notable. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then how is this notable? Notability guidelines only say that charting probably makes a song notable. This song has only been performed on Oprah and it charted in a few countries. Can be mentioned in The Fame Monster. All critical reviews are coming from the album (not a requirement for review inclusion but the reviews do not indicate individual notability aside from the album). – Chase  ( talk ) 02:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator comments. Candy  o32  01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Currently, this article doesn't have enough material to deserve to be kept, and the song hasn't done anything spectacular. If more relevant content is added, I would gladly reconsider, but until then I think it should be merged with the album. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge At this point in time, the song Monster does not deserve it's own article. It's as simple as that. Just becuase the song has charted on a few charts, and has been performed a few times does not give the song enough importance. Tons of different singers sing their songs that are not singles, but they don't get there own wiki page. So what should Gaga?  I am open to change though if the song continues to rise on some charts and becomes more well know.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plenty of information that could be added to this article. i would do it myself... but im terrible with sourcing things. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Until said information is added to the article by somebody, I'm afraid that's not a valid argument, especially since you're not providing sources that could be used. – Chase  ( talk ) 23:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added some composition information and reviews. More to come following more research. GOPTeen1995 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge if that was possible. There is nothing in the article that can't be present in The Fame Monster. And that's coming from the person who created "Dance in the Dark". — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "the person who created Dance in the Dark". Really???. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh. I should have been clear. The person who promoted it to GA. Feel better? Or worse? I DGAF. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Without this song TFM would never have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.206.62 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reasons based in wiki policy? – Chase  ( talk ) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Merge is not a sensible option for a modern song. There is no logical way that the contents can go in the album article without unbalancing the album article, for example a sample of this one song doesn't sit in the album article without samples of the other songs. So the result of any merge is that in practice the content is ultimately removed entirely. So the question is, do we keep the song article or delete it. So then we have to look at WP:NSONGS. Has it been ranked on national or significant music charts? It charted in the UK and New Zealand so clearly the answer to that is yes, note the wording is about being ranked, this has nothing to do with being released or a single. Next part 'a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs'. Looking at the talk page it's assessed as a Stub - that's a bit hard. The criteria of 'a reasonably detailed article' is the heart of the issue for me and rightly given by the nominator. The current sources for the article are not substantial and also I understand that additional references are unlikely in the future. On the other hand we doesn't set a minimum length for article. The body of the current article body has 796 words and we have Featured articles (Tropical Depression Ten (2005),Tropical Storm Erick (2007)) that have less. So for me it's really a borderline situation with 'a reasonably detailed article' and on balance my view that it is reasonably detailed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't even need to be merged. We don't need a sample of the song in The Fame Monster and if necessary, we can mention that it charted in that article. Per WP:NSONGS, charting only makes it "probably notable". If charting absolutely made a song notable in every case, we would have far too many song articles on wiki. This isn't a notable song and I see no reason for us to keep its article. – Chase  ( talk ) 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting we mention that Monster charted in The Fame Monster but not the other songs? This is what I refer to above as unbalancing the album article. Once you have mentioned information on one song there is a good case for mentioning information them all, or the more likely alternative - leaving them all out. Charting alone doesn't make a song notable, it's one for several criteria specified in WP:NSONGS. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I ever say we couldn't mention other songs charting in that article? – Chase  ( talk ) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just put it in Lady Gaga Discography? CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Discography would be musical releases. Non-singles aren't releases. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

- kaiserm (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : I agree with Sun Creator's comment. --Europe22 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete* It serves no great purpose. There is not much of a background and there are alot of songs which have charted higher that don't have a page. CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSONG and there is a reasonably detailed article. Rlendog (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep* - the article would be out of place merged into another, information would also have to be provided then about all of the songs including those singles which already have pages as singles and there is too much information and the digital sales that are charting it are sufficient to presume it may be a future single, to consider deletion would go against the wikipedia ideals of distributing such information. the song is also notable alongside the creator of the article, hence why I linked it to the Lady Gaga template
 * There's nothing really even to merge. All we have to do is mention that it charted in a few countries and maybe include the Oprah performance in the The Fame Monster article. All notable information about this song is already included in that article (except the charts, which, again, can easily be mentioned). Charting does not imply that a song will be a single, see WP:NOR. – Chase  ( talk ) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Notable in the charts (Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable.), but not notable with the prose, all unsourced and original researches. but still not being independent from The Fame Monster Tb hotch Ta lk C. 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - there really is nothing particularly notable here. The entire article seems to only serve the purpose of praising a Lady Gaga song.  It's an album track that charted briefly due to some download sales.  Performing it live does not make a song notable.  - eo (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated before, Dance in the Dark was kept when it was not officially a single, so it seems to be a little strange to delete Monster. In my opinion, Monster has been sufficiently advertised, having been promoted on Rock Band 2, performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and featured in the advertisement for The Fame Monster along with the first three singles. This video shows a notable significance. The four songs featured in the video were Bad Romance, Telephone, Alejandro, and Monster, respectively. The first three songs were released as singles, in the order that they were shown. If that pattern continues Monster may well be another single. It seems somewhat likely, however, that it won't be released as a single. Even so, Speechless was never released as a single. Again, as stated before, with a little sprucing up, Monster could be a perfectly respectable article. - Weaselpie (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't keep this article just because other non-single songs have articles. See WP:OSE. And that video means nothing. "Dance in the Dark" has been released as the fourth single anyway and to assume that it will be a single from that is pure WP:OR. "Speechless" is a very notable song which is why it has an article, this isn't which is why it shouldn't have one. – Chase  ( talk ) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (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.