Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Dark (Dev 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 keep. The last 3 comments following the second relist push this to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dark (Dev song)[edit]

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

~~Single, article makes no attempt at passing WP:NSONGS, references show only existence -- being a single is not enough by itself. Bold redirect reverted twice.~~ Amalthea 10:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NSONGS, no reason to believe will ever become notable in the future.—Kww(talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. It does have a couple of reviews (1, 2) which could be added but don't feel this will help it pass this criteria. Nik thestoned 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the reviews, non notable release. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I like this song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.103.239 (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, does not meet the notability guidelines to justify an article for a single song. It is unlikely that this article would grow beyond, at best, a list of excerpts from reviews. Skleinjung (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently this song is now listed on an acceptable national chart. Although this is not by itself enough to make it pass WP:N/WP:NSONGS, and no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been produced as of yet, in my personal opinion having charted is an acceptable bright line and I generally leave articles like that alone. I thus withdraw my nomination, acknowledging that the other opinions above may still be valid. Amalthea 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Considering the nominator's "heel-face turn", some more discussion would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's going to be released next week in the UK and if the past singles are anything to go by then it should chart there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitumen649ndx (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song is now on three charts and a couple sources are in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has charted on two national charts. I hear it on the radio like every day so it will most likely chart in my country too. Pancake (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is now notable because of the charts Spiderone 08:49, 6 August 2011 (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.