Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher (Heidi Montag 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. (X! · talk)  · @980  ·  22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher (Heidi Montag song)

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to meet the
  general notability guideline. Multiple reliable sources: Us Weekly, MSNBC.com, E! Online. The video, at least, seems to have received significant coverage. Powers ^T 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From

WP:MUSIC: "Songs 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." The song does not meet any of those qualifications. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• • The general notability guideline overrides more specific guidelines. Powers ^T 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It does, however, meet with Wikipedia's
  general notability guideline, in that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --JD554 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Indeed does fail
  chatter) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: If a song is notable because of a bad video, it's still notable. In what way does the article fail
    WP:GNG? --JD554 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep per
  WP:N and comments above mine. General notability > specialized notability. SKS (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per
  WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 08:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There are reliable sources; they just aren't in the article yet. How does this article not meet the general notability guideline? Powers ^T 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that that matters. If you have a looksie at
      WP:MUSIC#Songs you'll see that for a song to warrant a stand alone article it has to have 1. charted, 2. won an award or 3. been covered. Those claims then have to be backed up with RS. While the sources in the article my be reliable, they don't do anything to show notability to any of those 3 criteria.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I believe that's incorrect. No more specific guideline can restrict the inclusion of a topic that passes the general guideline; it can only expand the definition of acceptable content. Powers ^T 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The topic passes
  WP:NSONGS can't override Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - although it fails
  WP:GNG which is the prime standard for notability. The artistic merits of the song are irrelevant. If it is notable by virtue of being utter crap, so be it. We don't include on the basis of artistic accomplishment; we include on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. This crap is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually we include on the basis of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It may have been discussed in reliable sources, but only three articles that discuss the song are reliable. That hardly constitutes significant coverage. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misreading the
      WP:GNG which describes significant coverage as "sources address the subject directly in detail". It does, however, go on to say "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Three reliable source is multiple and they do cover the subject in detail. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I agree with JD554's interpretation. Powers ^T 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The coverage, although by no means exclusive, is more than just a trivial mention, and represents enough material in each reference to meet the criterion of being significant. Which is a longwinded way of saying that I also agree with JD554's interpretation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 16 July 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.