Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)

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. Avi 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)[edit]

A hip-hop song, why create it without the main album? The album also have some other songs, too.

2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)
Hit It From The Back (Remix)
It Ain't Easy
Bounce Shorty Bounce II - D-Roc
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) - Down South Remix
Booty Bounce
Ride Wit It - Tra-Luv
Dog
Booty Rock
. DJ's Anthem - B.K.
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) - 2000 Mix

Here is a link Fails WP:NSONGS. Gravity^Talk 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we have no articles for the artist, the album or the label. Possible speedy A7/G11. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, since it obviously has an tragically insufficient amount of information. Uioh 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boot it in da pants. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no page for artist or album. —ShadowHalo 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, and Merge information with Buttocks, in the popular culture section. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "2 Much Booty" (the song) in particular charted on two separate Billboard charts [1]. The answer here appears to be keeping the song, creating an album page, and creating an artist page. Easy expansion with some work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Has no data and is not notable. SetofFive 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [IMDB]] shows that this song was in the movie soundtrack for Date Movie [2]. I am not going to vote, but I submit that this "Booty in Da pants" (the song) is therefore notable. I don't believe that Soundmaster T, his album (booty in da pants) and his one hit wonder song should all have separate articles, but I do recognize the encyclopedicity of putting content about the song and its related history on da wikipedia somewhere. MPS 04:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Reaching #2 on the Billboard R&B charts seems notable enough for me. But if that's not good enough, then how about AMG's claim that the song was "a hugely successful dance single" and "significant contribution to the short-lived booty music craze". Song meets at least three of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Caknuck 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's too much booty and not enough notability. .V. (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what the community thinks of the added information about the Billboard charts. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Badlydrawnjeff. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeff (urgh ... I feel dirty :) ) and Ian's additions. And tne awesome name. Proto::► 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (please ignore last reason to keep).[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted single. Lack of information in the article is a reason to expand, not delete; it's only when verifiable information is impossible to get that things get deleted, and that's not the case here. JuJube 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because this single absolutely did not reach #2 on Billboard's R&B chart. I'm quite confused why somebody is under the impression that it did. It actually reached the illustrious position of #70. It may at some point merit an article, but for now I think everything about it can be covered in the article about its artist, should that ever exist. See, for example, Brian and Michael, which covers all the info on "Matchstalk Men & Matchstalk Cats & Dogs (Lowry's Song)," because it simply doesn't make sense to split it out yet, although that song is obviously notable (UK #1 single). Anyway, this tune is very borderline as far as its notability, and I don't think it really merits an article at this time. GassyGuy 05:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the link above regarding its chart history for the confusion. It doesn't quite match with Billboard's history [3], but it still charted on two charts, making it quite notable in its own right. Also, "Matchstalk Men" should probably be split out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Hot Rap Singles at that time was just a list of the (thirty? I can't recall the number) highest-charting rap tracks on the R&B Single Sales chart, so while I agree that that's two charts, I disagree that that somehow adds to the significance. GassyGuy 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm more stunned that a charting single can be considered insignficant, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep hit the billboard chart and was there for nearly 20 weeks. That certainly qualifies per WP:MUSIC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? WP:MUSIC says nothing about songs, and it would actually completely fail the failed WP:NSONGS. GassyGuy 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced... Addhoc 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. GassyGuy's point is valid.zadignose 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NSONGS failed for a reason; charting single needs cleanup and the album and artist could use articles Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:41, 19 January 2007 (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.