Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 4 March 2013

Hummingbird Heartbeat

Hummingbird Heartbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the section that has significant coverage derives from a primary source. Everything else is in the context of the album. Till 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Merge, the songs from Teenage Dream already have quite a bit of a mention. This page re-hashes a lot of that material with a dodgy release sourced from The Music Network which in itself is a reliable source but Australia is not a music market where radio-only releases and there's no other coverage regarding its supposed release. Not really likely to grow beyond a stub. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - substantially sourced, Google search of song reveals over 800,000 results. NYSMy talk page 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:HITS Till 23:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep was released as a single, has charted, has a music video (that isn't included in the article), has the possibility to be expanded more.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Per above  — AARON • 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that this article meets our notability guidelines. It is a single that has a considerable amount of coverage, apart from the chart positions it snatched. No reason to delete. — ΛΧΣ 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • An article cannot "meet our notability guidelines". The function of an article can, but that's it. The song does not have a considerable amount of coverage per the indepth analysis of the sources. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it charted. What we are here for is a lack of indepth coverage from third-party sources (see nom statement).

1. Contains 2 short lines about the song ("There's a song called 'Hummingbird Heartbeat'. He gives me that 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', she said."). No significant covreage.
2. A YouTube video, not a third-party independent source.
3. Contains 1 line ("Even 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', which sounds like an 80s hair metal anthem (including the easy-to-sing chorus), sadly falls a bit short of the mark."). No significant coverage.
4. Gets 2 sentences as part of an album review. No significant coverage.
5. A music sheet source. Not independent/no coverage
6. Same as 5
7. Album liner notes. Not independent of the topic.
8. "Popcrush" isn't a reliable source
9. Verifies an apparant chart position on radio. No significant coverage.
10. Same as 9
11. Gets 2 sentences like all the other tracks on the album. No significant coverage.
12. Has 1 sentence about this song ("The title cut and “Hummingbird Heartbeat” are also top-down bangers")
13. Contains 1 line ("The catchy, uptempo "Hummingbird Heartbeat" is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s.") No significant coverage.
14. Verifies a poor chart position. No coverage. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Combing through what's in the article doesn't do any good to verify if a song is notable. The article clearly isn't complete.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find anything significant outside of the article. Till 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep – Clearly within the scope of expansion and notable as a standalone individual article. —Indian:BIO · 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother to read any of the text above, because if you did you would realise that the song is not notable and failed to attract significant coverage from third-party sources. Till 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates