Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IndianBio (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 4 March 2013 (→Hummingbird Heartbeat: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates