Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name

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. (X! · talk) · @792 · 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Place With No Name

Non-notable 25 second sound clip. It hasn't been released as a single and hasn't appeared on any charts. The song clip fails notability per WP:NSONGS. All relevant information can and should be added to "A Horse with No Name". Pyrrhus16 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This song has no relevance to "A Horse With No Name" besides the fact that it sounds similar. This song will prove historical as it is the very first snippet of music heard following Jackson's Death. Whether it is 25 seconds long or two minutes long, it is still music and it is still an interesting topic that people would like to find out about. As time goes on, this page will develop and morph into the full song's article, however, as long as people want to know about Jackson's leaked music, this article should remain intact. --JDelo93 (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant media coverage, meets the general notability guideline. the wub "?!" 18:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several legitimate sources behind the song therefore, the song warrants its own article, especially considering the fact that one of those resources states that Jackson's will called for his unreleased materail to be released and this is the first to be released therefore, giving the notion that this song will be the first to be released in its entirely as an album track and perhaps a single. Of course this all speculation but the notion is now out there. A definate keeper. Jeremy 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per the reasons given by Pyrrhus. Also may fall foul of this. No need or justification for this article at the present time IMO. Sky83 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article contains no wikipedia violations or messy editing, it has a good deal of encyclopedic information. There are several sources in the article as well. The reasons given by Pyrrhus seem somewhat weak. Although it hasn't charted it seems notable enough to be mentioned as leaked music. The only problem I do see is that it is noted as a song, when it should be noted as "leaked song" or some variation thereof. --68.192.142.241 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets the general notability guideline. Has significant sources, will prove to be an important article in due time. --67.84.35.56 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 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.