Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go U Good Thing

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. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go U Good Thing[edit]

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

Contested PROD by article author. Reasoning is this is a non-notable future album that doesn't pass WP:N nor WP:RS at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly Think This Article should not be removed because this music artist is getting more popular over the world and is growing very strongly on the internet. (talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The relevant passage from WikiScripture is WP:NSONG, which means that the notability of this single hinges on that of Darren Ross whose article lacks sources to back the claim and has been tagged as such since September. This article is part of a whole series by Croniclataus (talk • contribs), who according to the Darren Ross template seems to have a conflict of interest. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Think that it should not be deleted because people think he is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for keeping the article around though. Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion, and so far you have not provided any proof that the albums (or the artist) passes any of these guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Darren Ross Disco Man" and you will see heaps of proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can find no WP:RS to indicate this meets WP:NSONG. Gongshow ^Talk 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I smell a hoax, the supposed album cover is a cell phone photo. Hairhorn (talk) 15:30, 16 November 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.