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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)[edit]

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication that this subject should warrant its own article. Most of the content in the article is already mentioned in the main article. Was supposed to be a redirect but then DBZFan30 decided to create the page then edit war over it when I reverted back to a redirect, hence why I've now have no other option (apart from ANI) but to list this here Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the lyrics within the song have a long history of being used for comedic effect when stipulating it as normal everyday language. Therefore it is notable outside and beyond the framework of this single. 92.13.139.173 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW, moving the article to the song's correct title (Yo Home to Bel Air (song)) because this song meets both the GNG and the specific criteria for singles, peaking at number 4 in the national Singles chart in the Netherlands here. There's also evidence of sustained coverage - a performance on national TV of this song as recently as 2012 on the BBC here and in 2013 here, for example. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Not enough independent coverage, while anything worth saving can be merged to the article about the series when talking about the theme song. Charting, in and of itself, does not make a song automatically notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect The coverage of this song worth mentioning is entirely linked to Smith & the The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Better to cover it there in context. Gab4gab (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A number of sources have been added. Any subsequent comments or !votes should take this into account. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As argued above there seems to be enough evidence of notability and stories like this [1] would seem to further support this.Dunarc (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the song has been "covered" by various artists, it does not warrant the article a "free pass". This can be merged into the main Fresh Prince of Bel-Air article. Also, WP:NSONGS states that "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is the case here, and why I'm saying it needs to be merged. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be objective - take a step back, read through the article. There is substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources so the WP:GNG is met (with plenty of potential for more material from all these sources to be added), combined with evidence that the article meets WP:NSINGLE (because it was released as a single, it's not just a theme song). That's enough for the retention of an article. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was undecided, maybe slightly leaning keep prior to the work which has been done expanding the article. Now, it seems pretty clear to me that it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No question, given the additions made over the last day or so. I'd say that much of the content currently under The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air#Development belongs in the song article also, since it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the development of the show at all. JG66 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit of a stickler for sourcing, and the references to the song in that section don't have any (although I remember reading the same information somewhere else so I don't doubt its accuracy). I'll be adding bits from there when I can locate sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back - Great song however I personally believe it's still not notable here, IMHO it's better off being a redirect with the content merged in to the main Prince of Bel Air article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep abundance of sources in the article clearly show standalone support, no call to merge or redirect is warranted. ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Source show that the song is notable on its own, and deserves more coverage than we should have in its own section on the proposed merge target. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is an iconic song; definitely notable --Temp87 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (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.