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. The keeps failed to establish consensus in light of the arguments of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soulja Boy Tellem (song)[edit]

Album track / radio only song. Number 108 in the American Billboard Hot 100 is not notable. PXK ^T /_C 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Gucci Bandana

Keep as both songs appear to have charted, passing WP:SONG. DJ 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both actually only got to the Bubbling Under Hot 100 charts, which are charts of 25 songs that haven't reached top 100 (ie, 8 in BU is 108 on the Hot 100) -- Jordan Payne ^T /_C 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DJ. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remove my damn !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song didn't "chart". It was included in a "chart" whose criteria for eligibility is that is can't have made the Billboard Top 100. So it is a ranking of songs that didn't chart. Sort of like being the valedictorian of the special ed class. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the song has charted, and as much as Soulja Boy sucks dick and so does this song, i vote to keep it Str8cash (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. It's a song that charted for songs that didn't chart? That really doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it may have "charted", there is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, per WP:SONGS. Remove the unsourced claims and all you're left with is 2 sentences. Not exactly substantial. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soulja Boy Tellem (song) only charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, a chart that Billboard no longer archives, making the verifiability impossible. Redirect Gucci Bandana to iSouljaBoyTellem, which charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs; any relevant information can be merged there. — Σxplicit 02:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Gucci Bandana to iSouljaBoyTellEm. Delete Soulja Boy Tellem (song). The former is a plausible search term and should redirect to the album - the songs themselves do not have sufficient notability for individual articles.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator removing another's vote, citing WP:PER, which is about getting an admin to edit a locked page for you. He meant WP:PERNOM, but neither mention removing votes. WP:TPNO and WP:TPOC do; they expressly forbid it. Add to this the insistence that the Billboard Top 100 is the only possible source to indicate that a song is notable, when the reason is right in WP:MUSIC:("Notability aside, 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.") From the article: "This is one of the four songs that were not released as singles, but were released to radio stations." It got to 108 with airplay alone. That's notability; the article could definitely go past stub, with elaboration on the means by which this was achieved. Therefore only the definition of 'unlikely', as in "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs", is in dispute. Anarchangel (talk) 10:01, 3 August 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.