Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There Goes My Baby (Usher 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   redirect to Raymond v. Raymond. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There Goes My Baby (Usher song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Prod removed without comment. Fails WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Aiken  &#9835;  12:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. From WP:MUSIC: "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." I this case, it's probably notable because it ranked in at least two different charts. It was originally a redirect to Raymond v. Raymond, and was converted to a full article because a user felt he could make a better article, and said author wasn't yet informed.  It would also create redlinks on 50+ pages. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your remark about red links is not relevant, as the vast majority of those links occur within the Usher template. Aiken   &#9835;  13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge back to the album article. The phrase "probably notable" means that it's not automatic notability for a song to be ranked on a Billboard chart-- if there were automatic notability, it would be a "the rich get richer" policy, since nearly any single release by an established band (such as Usher) is going to get charted somewhere, even if it's no higher than #26 or #71.  The next sentence in WP:MUSIC is a good rule of thumb -- "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."  Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Song charted. If no more sourced information is available to be added, merge to Raymond v. Raymond may be appropriate, but can be determined via a merge discussion. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - There's no real material to build a separate article specifically about this song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.