Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love College (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. Relisted once, the consensus is clear. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love College (song)[edit]

A song that I don't believe meets the Notability guideline for songs; has appeared on a few charts and has gotten radio play, but I don't see any other evidence of notability. I contacted the article creator for comment (User talk:Amer10#I Love College) and received no response; likewise, no response to my question at the talk page. A google search appears to turn up nothing but blog entries and music videos (I left some links at the article talk page), and right now the article seems to be a target for vandalism or misinformation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note I Love College is currently a redirect to Asher Roth; I think redirecting this article to Asher Roth would also be appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet any of the WP:Notability (music) criteria. WVhybrid (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let's look at that page again: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"...Then it goes on to say "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Since that piece of criteria is met, then it's an automatic keep. Tom Danson (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: that is the notability criterion for an artist, not a song. Roth himself meets the criteria; this single doesn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, now let's go to the song criterion; "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 policy says it's notable enough to be kept, so keep it (Don't know why more users aren't joining) Tom Danson (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if the discussion result is keep, I suggest the page be moved to I Love College, as there are no other notable items with that name. Tom Danson (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, it's charted, it's referenced and it is more than a stub. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a charting single, it is notable. Tavix (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as charting single with potential for extension as it is released in other markets. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of expansion? Right now, the article is little more than a mention of where the song charted, which could easily be merged into Asher Roth. According to WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"—as far as I can tell, there's nothing worth saying about this song other than that it was on some charts, and while that may be notable, I feel it's not really worth having a stub on when a redirect to Asher Roth would suffice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Face it, Rjanagger, it's charted, so it deserves its own article. It's #28 on the Billboard Hot 100-can't get much bigger than that. There are plenty of articles like this, and more press will come when it charts higher. I don't know WHY you're still doing all you can to get it deleted, but the proof is there that it's notable, plus a consensus has been generated, so I'm just waiting for an admin to close the debate and officially declare it to be a Keep. Tom Danson (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Song has charted in the Top 40 on two major US charts and has a couple of sources. Good enough to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the single charted higher on the billboard hot 100 it is now notable because it has basically met the guidelines. Also it's gained media coverage, remixes and the like. Just search on goggle and you find the sources that can cite the claims Raintheone (talk) 21:29, 26 February 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.