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. fishhead64 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable song per Wikipedia:Notability (music), not released as a single, being used for WWE Raw doesn't cut it. The article also provides no sources. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable song, wiki is not a list for every song.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Hit 29 on the mainstream rock tracks. Tim Long 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep uggg. it was released as a single + #29 Billboard mainstream. hard to say if WWE theme songs are deemed notable, but i would go with keep on this one. the_undertow ^talk 06:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "mainstream rock" charts are selective. Something that hits #29 on that may not even trouble the full Top 100 chart, and it looks like this one didn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sleep On It 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Charted on a national chart. Plus it was an important theme song. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't even been verified.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this information is on the The Union Underground article! Also if it is that important then it should be added into Music in professional wrestling it shouldn't need it's own article at all. Govvy 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant information to The Union Underground. This doesn't cut it as a standalone article.
  
• Delete On quick review there is NO relevant information worthy of transferring. The fact that Jacqueline danced to this once isn't really encyclopaedic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicates info from an existing article. Adds nothing new. Agree with nom. - BierHerr 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Delete per nom" is not a valid comment. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:00, 22 April 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.