Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"The Christian Anthem"


 * 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, spam. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Christian Anthem"

 * — (View AfD)

nn advert. Just H 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Full of meaningless buzzwords, especially compared to the 64 ghits this song gets. Non-notable. MER-C 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are 64 ghits? Why is this linked to Google results? Why do you feel it is full of meaningless buzzwords? In the 2 years the presentation has been online, I've never heard such a thing!Kutlessfan777 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghits == Google hits. "Touched millions of lives" is meaningless, especially when Google hasn't heard of it. MER-C 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No evidence of notability.  Someone might want to take a look at Lee Behnken with an eye on WP:MUSIC, as well. Tevildo 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Utter and complete failure of both WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The given claims of notability are entirely subjective and unverifiable.  - Smerdis of Tlön 05:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is merely an article that details a song. I was intending to add much more information, but I am new to this (first day) and I see now that you can't just add a page because chances are it will be deleted.Kutlessfan777 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kutlessfan777, may I respectfully draw your attention to WP:CIVIL? May I also recommend that you make it clear that your opinion is that the article should be kept?  Thanks. Tevildo 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tevildo, I find the comment civil enough. Dont bite .... DGG 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See your talk page, there is a better explanation there. --Dennisthe2 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wish it to remain.Kutlessfan777 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating the song meets notability standards at WP:SINGLE. -- Kinu  t/c (éŕ) 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can probably call spam on this. But, it seems that selling is the secondary purpose of the site, and simply showing the movie.  But looking closely, the movie and/or song is a means of evangelism - which is exactly one of the many things that Wikipedia is not.  Aside from that, doing a google search and eliminating wikipedia and the artist's sites turns up less than 100 ghits (yes, I know...), and many of those seem to be either blogs or places where to buy the album with the tune on here.  Verifiable, but not at this time notable.  Delete.  --Dennisthe2 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability test as per above, and article is not NPOV (should be in third person and neutral voice). Should be merged into Lee Behnken provided that that article survives its own AfD Orderinchaos78 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It would not need to be merged with Lee Behnken; the entire content of the article is already there. It would need to be de-linked, though. Joyous! | Talk 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 16:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely to be expanded further then it currently is. No one can seem to be able to find any reliable sources on it. It is already present in Lee Behnken even though it needs a fact tagged added to it. Reads like ad copy with its use of "promotional" language. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.