Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:16Z 

Who's Your Daddy? (song)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "notability most certainly ascertained; only 6 songs ever became music videos for this band, first Finnish and first rock Eurovision winners, and all were chart successes, too". Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs. — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lordi is an international band played often in MTV Europe so I won't say they have one popular song. If it really topped the Finnish chart it could stay withou doubt.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the song wasn't popular. It is. It's just not notable on Wikipedia. If you disagree, please demonstrate how it fulfills WP:N. — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The song hit #1 on the Finnish chart. Period. That's notable enough -- Wikipedia has plenty of entries for songs that hit #1 on the international chart but didn't make the American. Rockstar915 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that this is true, nor would it be sufficient evidence of wp:notability if it were true. There are literally tens of thousands of songs, possibly hundreds of thousands, that have been chart-toppers on some country's chart. That doesn't make any of them automatically notable for a Wikipedia article. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments - I think that the "only 6 songs made into music videos" needs to be removed. What is with only? 6 seems like a lot. It's biased criteria of notability. Surely similarily famous bands have lest. This song as a chart topper should be kept. Lordi has two internationally notable songs: Hard Rock Hallelujah, and Devil is a Loser (their widely used response to Satanist criticisms).--ZayZayEM 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my words. "Only 6" was what the prod-remover said. It doesn't matter if it was 1, 6, or 100, making videos has nothing to do with wp:notability. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep - if the song being #1 on the Finnish chart can be verified. Otherwise, delete per nom.  Black Falcon 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I say above, even if this is true it doesn't automatically make notability. The same would apply to tens of thousands of different otherwise non-notable songs. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not entirely so. While the Notability of Songs proposal is no longer active, making the top 20 in a "large or medium sized country" was part of that proposal. I'd argue that Finland is large enough or medium sized enough to qualify. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And that proposal was rejected by the community, so it's a moot point. As WP:N stands, multiple third party WP:reliable sources are needed that discuss the song as their primary topic. That will do it, less won't. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. Sources: from ESCToday (perhaps not the most disinterested party, but this is the music world after all). A review of the album, which mentions the song (not about the song itself, but I'll throw it in if you want it). a site mentioning the release of the video. Review of the album, Concert review, in which "the current single" is played, and appearances in the Top 40 of several European states. We can debate "primary topics" now, I'm guessing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably would be a good idea to discuss primary topics, since not a single one of those links mentions the song in more than one sentence. Several are blogs, as well, which would not count for notability even if they were primarily about the song. And the top 40 charts! What is the point of bringing this up again? Tens of thousands of songs make top charts! That doesn't mean those songs get to have articles. The german site you came up with for one of the other songs was good, although for that song there's still a need for at least one other reliable source to make it "multiple". That's the sort of coverage we're looking for here. Isn't there anything comparable for this song? — coe l acan t a lk  — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, no, there doesn't appear (at least to me) to be anything comparable, which I find interesting. As far as the blogs are concerned, I'll repeat my comments in the other AfD where we've exchanged views, which are that where no other references exist, blogs are all we have. Given that we're talking about singles, which tend not to get reviewed in the music press short of a mention that X has released Y as a single, the fact that this particular single has attracted any mention at all would appear to be an argument for its notability. In terms of the charts issue, in this case my response is two-pronged. Firstly, I'll repeat my question of what else a song can do other than reaching number 1. Yes, lots of songs do this, but it's a considerable achievement to do so regardless of how many do it. Thus, if a song verifiably reached number 1, which this one did, why does that not count either way? Secondly, given that this song appeared not only in the Finnish charts but also those of three other countries, surely that must count for something as well, or does it simply suffer from appearing in the charts of the wrong countries? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What else can a song do besides reach number 1? See Imagine (song) for an example. It can be the topic of media coverage. It can be a subject of artistic criticism. It can be deconstructed. There's a great deal that can happen to make a song repeatedly notable, besides simply being a chart topper and then fading away and apparently never being written about. I wish we could discuss this without making insinuations about geography. I don't care what country it was number 1 in. I've only said repeatedly that number 1 anywhere doesn't matter. Since I have clearly said that, why would you assume that I don't mean it? Why does this have to be about geography? As for blogs, well, the fact simply is that you can't write a verifiable article with blogs. Blogs don't have editorial oversight, so they aren't reliable sources. It may be that many songs' claims to notability comes from blogs. This should be taken as an indication that these songs are not notable enough to have their own article here. — coe l acan t a lk  — 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, other things can happen to a song in certain situations. However, not all songs happen to be written by people who are venerated as deities of the songwriter's art. Neither are they necessarily going to be deconstructed and so on just a year after they were released. The fact remains, however, that this particular song has already achieved some kind of notability by reaching number 1 in one country and charting elsewhere. Precedent has been that a song released by a notable band and reaching number 1 is notable of itself, and currently I'm leaning towards the view that the argument to delete is based on a needlessly restrictive reappraisal of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like this should be moved to Who's Your Daddy? (single), but I'm not entirely sure if it was released as a single.--SeizureDog 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that every song released as a single needs to have "single" after it instead of "song". That said it was certainly released as a single. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If number 1 in Finland can be verified. Finland is a big enough country IMO for a number 1 song there to be notable. Jules1975 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Means very little. The number of songs that have been chart toppers is huge, and this alone doesn't make it possible to write an article about them. The point of asking for multiple independent reliable sources is that without such articles, there's no verifiable content that can ever be added to the article. If the article can't be verified with reliable sources, then the article can't be written on Wikipedia. A graph of chart success does not give us this. — coe l acan t a lk  — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete unless a reliable and verifiable source is added to the article by the end of the discussion period to show that the song achieved the claimed chart topping in Finland. If true, it should not be hard to find proof. Per it was #1 in Finland on Sept. 9, 2006. Satisfies WP:MUSIC. I will add the ref to the article if someone else hasn't. I don't agree with WP:MUSIC that all songs by a notable group are notable, but this one makes the grade. It was also top 20 (#14) in Sweden and #21 in Austria. Inkpaduta 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not establish notability for the song to have its own independent article outside of the Lordi article. That is accomplished by actually being the topic of written coverage. Who wrote articles about this song? Where are the reliable sources that some reporter took the time to write? — coe l acan t a lk  — 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, number 1 single in Finland. Philwelch 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. See my reply to Jules1975, above. — coe l acan t a lk  — 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply to Jules above is fallacious. I would also advise you that challenging every vote you disagree with by repeating or citing the same point repeatedly is not very useful. Evidently, most people disagree with your reasoning no matter how many times it is repeated or referred to. Philwelch 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone would actually start answering those points then that would be useful. Disagree with my reasoning? Fine. Then you should be able to explain how an article gets written without third party reliable sources to draw from. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A No. 1 hit single in a significant country is unquestionably notable. The nominator appears to be setting an absurdly high bar for song notability, one that would sweep most existing song articles out of Wikipedia if applied consistently. As for having articles about every other single that topped the charts in a significant country, I have to ask "why not" - as Wikipedia is not paper, the primary limitation is the number of editors who are willing to write such articles and enjoy doing so. A few years ago in Wikipedia, only unknown songs by unknown bands were nominated for deletion. Is Wikipedia now so pushed for space that we have to start deleting Number 1 singles by significant bands? Is this really what the AfD/VfD process was created for? AdorableRuffian 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, AFD really was created fro getting rid of articles that shouldn't exist. There's nothing that can be written about this song beyond a stub, because there are no sources of notabilty and thus verifiability. If an article can never expand beyond a stub, then it must be merged. There's nothing absurdly high about these criteria. I am only asking for what WP:N is asking for: "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." And nobody is presenting those. — coe l acan t a lk  — 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe articles about major hit singles by notable artists absolutely should exist on Wikipedia. You have used a strict and subjective interpretation of the WP:N guidelines in judging that the subject is non-notable. Imposing notability criteria which exclude no.1 hit singles by major artists is setting an absurdly high bar for song notability. As per Cpt. Morgan, I do not understand why you feel the need to reply to and individually disparage each "keep" comment. You are entitled to your opinion just as the "keep" contributors are entitled to theirs. AdorableRuffian 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Reply to and individually disparage?" This isn't simply about opinions that aren't to be challenged. We're not talking about tastes in music here. This is a discussion worth having and I intend to give every argument its hearing. I don't think there's anything wrong with letting someone know why I disagree with their argument and trying to engage them further. If I didn't respect anyone's arguments then I wouldn't bother. (I also wouldn't bother if it was clear I was wrong, but I don't see that yet. — coe l acan t a lk  — 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments in the Blood Red Sandman AfD debate. WMMartin 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm cutting and pasting those comments here for the convenience of other editors: "Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin" — coe l acan t a lk  — 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Lordi surely is a notable band and because this song is part of what makes Lordi fullfill the notability criteria for music ("Has had a charted hit on any national music chart."), see Notability (music), the song itself should also have its own article. And one comment: please stop defending this nomination so vigorously with replies to each and every keep vote. People are allowed their opinions and these will all be weighted in by the closing admin, you do not have to explain to the closing admin why you do not agree with some of the votes. Notability is a guideline and never a goal in itself, it serves to help us create an encyclopedia. Common sense should always prevail. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not explaining anything to the closing admin. I am trying to get other !voters to engage in discussion beyond their initial comment. There's nothing wrong with that and I won't be intimidated into stopping. I have every right to ask for further discussion. I understand that the song helps Lordi fulfill their criteria but I ask, without further reliable sources, what article can be written about the song? What is the point of having a stub that never grows? — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Completely absurd.  A number 1 song isn't "notable?"  Come on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we expand the article beyond a stub without reliable sources? — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a few? Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; absurd as per badlydrawnjeff. I don't know about the rejected proposal that top 20 songs are notable, but I think I can say with a strong degree of certainty that a song that reaches #1 is notable.  Ral315 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else you could say about the stong, though? Anything to write an article from? — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; per badlydrawnjeff and Ral315. --Epeefleche 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as number one charting songs are notable regardless of what country they charted in. Stub articles are not a crime.  (jarbarf) 19:32, 12 February 2007 (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.