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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (Heidi Montag song)[edit]

Fashion (Heidi Montag song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this song fails WP:notability (music) because the song has never charted nor has it been covered by lots of artists etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the song passes WP:NSONG as it has "been performed independently by several notable artists" (Heidi Montag and Lady Gaga). Furthermore, it also meets the WP:GNG with 1, 2, 3, and 4. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to strong keep. The article has greatly expanded with significant coverage, including in reliable sources for entertainment such as Entertainment Weekly and E! Online. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pokerdance; Lady Gaga and RedOne are notable by themselves, thus meaning that the song is inherently notable per WP:NSONGS, specifically "ISongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Cheers, I'^mperator 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While I agree that this article should be kept, it's notable because of its coverage and the fact that Montag and Gaga have independently performed it. Notability is not inherited. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: This song was never released as an actual single and never managed to chart. The only notable aspect was that it made an appearence on the Confessions of a Shopoholic soundtrack and film. Apart from that, there is no real relevant reason to keep this article. Perhaps it could be merged here somehow. • вяαdcяochat 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Montag's version actually was released as a promotional single, it just failed to chart. Regardless, the fact that it was re-recorded by Lady Gaga, another notable artist, assures the song notability per WP:NSONG. As I have stated earlier, this song also meets the WP:GNG.
  
  I would like to know how you think a merge would work. Not only was this released as a promo single for Montag, Gaga's version was featured on both a film soundtrack and a television episode. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 09:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because two artists covering a song that was never released officially is not notable. the song did not recieve extensive airplay and never charted. it is not even well docummented by good sources. read WP:notability (music) it clearly fails. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Striking nominator vote. talkingbirds 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (directed at Lil-unique1): Montag's version was released officially as a promotional single. And two notable artists recording the song does make it notable. Its lack of airplay and chart performance is irrelevant. Perhaps you should read WP:NSONG again. Also, there are good sources. Unless you would like to argue that Us Weekly, E! Online, and Entertainment Weekly are not good sources for entertainment. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pokerdance, as it passes WP:NSONGS. talkingbirds 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sources stated that it was a single but no reliable third coverage reported on a confirmed release. The article also fails WP:Notability (music). If the song was actually released as a single, I would vote to keep considering it was used for a film. Unfortunately it never was. • вяαdcяochat 09:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How can you say this article fails WP:NSONG when it was clearly recorded independently by two notable artists? Perhaps you need to read that over again. And even if it were to fail that notability guideline, it does pass the WP:GNG as I have previously stated, and general notability > specialized notability, otherwise the GNG wouldn't exist.
  
  The article may need clean-up and more references, yes, but a delete, redirect, or merge is completely unnecessary, since the song clearly passes the notability guideline for songs. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no need to act in such a hasty manner. I have my views and you have yours. Personally, I think that it fails WP:NSONG more than it meets the criteria. You may not agree with me and I fully respect that. • вяαdcяochat 10:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I respect the fact that you have a different opinion than me, however, I fail to see why you insist on merging when the song's notability per both WP:NSONG and the WP:GNG has already been explained. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It way passes wP:SONG and WP:NOTABILITY. However User:Pokerdance I would like to point out that you should probably tone down your comments because its coming off as aggressive. Adding comments below each and every user's vote and opinions doesnot seem good-faith to me. you have stated yours and they have theirs. Let the closing admin decide what to do. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I really am torn in this discussion. It is an unreleased song with limited media coverage which failed to chart but then again, some aspects of WP:NSONG, the article comes to terms with. If this article is kept, the accuracy will have to be improved. Example of this is where it states "it was released as her third promotional single in June 2008", where are the sources of confirmed release and tracklisting? Also Amazon is a bad source and should not be used on the article. • вяαdcяochat 07:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (directed at Legolas2186): Well, I'm certainly not trying to come off as aggressive, though I won't deny if I am being so because I do have a strong desire to keep this article so it can be improved much more and am thus very defensive of it. However, isn't commenting on others' opinions supposed to be what a discussion is about? I'm sure you know, but consensus is more than a vote, so your arguments have to be strong. In commenting on editors who disagree with the keeping of this article, it further proves my argument. As I said, I want to keep this very much so that it can be expanded and improved. I will try to tone it down, but I will continue to fight for this article. It has loads of potential. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since i nominated the article i am not allowed to vote but i would like to point a few things out. First of all WP:notability (music) point out that a song is notable if it is covered by several notable artists. Lady Gaga is notable but Heidi Montag is not cus she has yet to release an album. Secondly the rules point out that a song should be notable if it has recieved multiple awards or charted numerous times - this song has never done so. Finally the song has not recieved extensive critical acclaims or review and will always remain a stub because it was only ever a promotional release. It clearly states in WP:notability (music) that songs which are released through promo are not generally considered notable. remember that the number of credible sources for this song will be low because it was never properly released. i cannot understand the need for an article of this level of trivialness, it could easily be merged into Heidi Montag's page and Lady Gaga. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: Your nomination was essentially a vote. Your second delete vote was striked because you were making it appear to be someone else making a vote to delete. Regardless of the fact that Heidi Montag has not yet released an album, she is quite notable. She meets criterion #1 and 2, amongst others, at WP:BAND, as having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and having had one of her singles ("More Is More") chart on the Hot Dance Club Play chart in the United States. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Heidi Montag and Lady Gaga are both notable artists, but in my opinion the song is not. Sure the artists are notable, but the song fails because it has not charted or been nominated for an award even though it has significant coverage. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While the song clearly meets notability as having been recorded independently by several notable artists, you acknowledge that the song has received significant coverage. That would cause this song to meet the general notability guideline, so even if this article did fail WP:NSONG, general notability > specialized notability. Otherwise the GNG serves no purpose. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 07:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NSONG exists specifically to address the issues with the notability of songs. If a song has never charted it needs to be covered by several (not two... but more) notable artists. Montag having recorded the song and having released it as a promo is not notable because it did not chart and was not critically acclaimed. A notable artist is not a celebrity but more someone who has had several releases with charts and awards. Heidi Montag falls into neither of those catagories, and producing this article on the basis of Lady GaGa having recorded the song is a waste because she never released it either. there is not enough information to warrant a whole page for this stubby article. WP:GNG exists for general guidelines but where specific criteria apply e.g. WP:NSONGS is available this should be applied as the primary criteria. Lets look at the facts though. WP:Notability (music) states that songs must be: covered by several notable arists, charted on notable rankings, recieved recgnised awards and must only have their own page if there is sufficiant varifiable information to warrant a full page. Of these criteria we are essentially arguing if Heidi Montag is a notbale artist, meaning it fails 3 out of 4 of the criteria for a notable song. Under this information alone it should be sufficiant to conclude that this article should be merged into Heidi Montag. I haven't interpreted anything that isn't already in the wikipedia guidelines. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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.