Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Not Mad

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. JForget 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Mad[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:NSONG - merge to Alex Gardner. GregJackP (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to start an AfD to merge an article. If anything, you can place one of the {{merge}} templates at the top of the article. (By the way, I agree with the merge.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The hype machine has gone into full flow for this one, and as a result there's already plenty of web and TV coverage: Gardner performing the song on STV (and no, it isn't Marjorie Dawes interviewing him), California Chronicle (brief), MTV session, Daily Mail, About.com, GMTV. Not a lot of coverage specifically about the song/single as yet, but in about 12 hours there's a good chance it'll enter the UK Singles Chart although it didn't hit the midweek chart. Covering it in the Alex Gardner (singer) article seems the best approach until there's more to say about it.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Single was released and now there are plenty of sources. As a debut single its notable. I watched the song on youtube. Its crap. But i'm not the target audience. Szzuk (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Szzuk. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the sources say little or nothing about the single other than its release date. It didn't make the top 40 yesterday, so all the hype didn't pay off.--Michig (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry into the top 40 doesn't decide notability. Some of those songs by much more established artists wont have their own page. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making #44 is a good claim to notability. Unfortunately nobody seems to have written anything about the song yet, which is the biggest problem here.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single has now charted at #44 on the UK Singles Charts. Its now notable and has reliable sources. --Holywood56 (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somebody needs to add a reliable source to the article. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. Am86 (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted at #44,and meets all wiki guidelines.Jamiebijania (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 10 April 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.