- 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 speedy delete under A9, noting that speedy deletion was contested by the article's creator only. Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikileaks Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Contested speedy delete. This objection is on its talk page: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikileaks Song article is very relevent and should not be subject to deletion. Wikileaks is a huge social issue worldwide, and this song is supportive and spreading the Wikileaks word. Thenovocastrians (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As TBotNL succinctly says, the WP:NOBLE page explains the deletion basis here. The underlying Policy, is WP:NOT|ADVOCATE. The song was released very recently; I note the iTunes page doesn't list any other songs for that artist. It doesn't, as far as I can see, pass the relatively high bar (even Wikipedia doesn't get a page on its own (albeit unreleased) song on this site) that exists for song articles here. –Whitehorse1 07:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable: reliable sources don't seem to have paid much attention to this. Chester Markel (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion per WP:A9 Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 08:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (possibly speedy) per WP:NSONGS and WP:TOOSOON. There's also a serious COI issue here, as the article was created by the band themselves. Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:NSONGS. The defense of the article above indicates that WP:NOTADVOCATE is another valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (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.