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. No consensus to delete after 21 days. My personal opinion is that it should be redirected to the album but that's an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff (song)

[edit]

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

contested prod, lacks 3rd party sources, does not meet WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted. The band haven't confirmed if it will even be a single yet, only Metal Hammer. So we have absolutely no clue, because it has not been officialy confirmed. I don't think Wikipedia needs a page based on something that is not YET fact. Bring the page back if the fact is proven later, but for now, this is a speculation page. Epeu (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reference added is an ad from the band in a music publication. As a primary source it doesn't do much to establish the notability of this topic. It may be notable one day, but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pause the discussion and start over in a few weeks. Without reliable sources independent of the band, it should go away; HOWEVER, the single will be released in 5 days. It is a well formatted article with some prose and there is no point in losing that. The bands fans should do the work and make sure it has sources to show notability within the next few days. Miami33139 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree if there was a good encyclopedic article here that simply needed proper references, but that is not the case. It's original research. Not worth keeping. This article should be deleted. It may be recreated later when it can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FMQB indicates that the song has been released to Active Rock and Alternative radio formats, and as of October 1, 2009, Mediabase's daily updates at AllAccess.com (membership required, unfortunately, so I can't add a direct link; if there's an equivalent out there I'd appreciate it) place "Snuff" at number 33 and number 47 on the aforementioned formats, respectively. Gongshow ^⊕ 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now appears accurate and meets WP:NOTE. Shanata (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article claims (admittedly without sources) that the song charted. Unless that is inaccurate, the song meets WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 5 October 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.