Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lady Gaga songs

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lady Gaga songs

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

This artist, however famous, has recorded/released one album and one EP, along with a handful of collaborations. How is this article informative or notable? I've already removed a large section of "unreleased songs" that contained no sources whatsoever, along with a small list of songs Gaga performed live in concert. What is left is basically the track lists for her small output, arranged in alphabetical order. Gaga already has a discography page with a lot more information than this. This is not an artist with hundreds of recorded songs like, say, the Beatles or even Beyoncé Knowles, who has several albums and a soundtrack album to her credit. - eo (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~The article is notable because many of her songs were #1 hits in major markets and while I personally agree with your opinion of it not being very informative that doesn't mean that the rest of Wikipedia's users share our belief. Under the assumption that she'll continually release music over at least the next few years the article will likely grow and become more useful and relevant. Not to mention there's a very fuzzy line between being a "big enough" musical artist to warrant a discography page and no real guideline to justify saying which notable artists are prolific enough and which arent. Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the Discography article I agree it should be DeletedNefariousski (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because her songs have hit #1 doesn't make this list worthy of inclusion; like I said, Lady Gaga discography clearly features her big hits. Why not make a list for everyone? There are plenty of other artists with a lot more recorded material than Gaga (for example, how about Pet Shop Boys? They have ten albums and I'm a big fan - why not make a page?). The hope that she'll record tons of new songs in the years ahead doesn't seem like a good reason to keep it now. - eo (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Pet Shop Boys do have a list of songs page... It's in there artists discography box. It just doesn't seem to be well edited and maintained. You can get on that 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs)

Delete I agree with both arguments, but I agree with eo more strongly. What's in this article is covered better in the discography article. Chutznik (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two albums and a lot more songs then currently lsted in the article. BTW thanks for nominated for Afd it is correct that at least this afd discussion takes place whatever the outcome. SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant with Lady Gaga discography.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in essence a fork of Lady Gaga discography. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced an independent article is warranted at this time. As far as I can tell, the 2006 songs are not listed in reliable sources as part of Lady Gaga's body of work; if indeed unverifiable, then those entries should be removed. That leaves her 2008-2009 output, which except for "Christmas Tree" and "Fashion", is already listed under The Fame Monster's deluxe edition tracklisting. Additionally, 17 of her 2008-2009 songs have charted and are already shown in the Lady Gaga discography article. The handful of collaborations not yet listed on her discography page can be appropriately placed there as well. Gongshow ^Talk 21:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Lady Gaga discography. SMSpivey (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, it's totally redundant. Reach Out to the Truth 15:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it is redundant to Lady Gaga discography. Warrah (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Eric. A complete fail of WP:N. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant, redundant and have no sources Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the contents are redundant to information already on wikipedia. andyzweb (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shes a singer/song-writer so she has a lot of songs that will eventually (if not already) become a page on it own. Sources shouldn't have to be provided but can be found if needed. Other artists have "List of Songs" pages and don't have nearly as many albums/EP's as Gaga has right now. {08:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Lady Gaga discography ¨¨ victor falk ^talk 16:14, 1 February 2010 (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.