Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Especially in Michigan


 * 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. Wickethewok 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Especially in Michigan
This article contains only the opinions and thoughts of its author and does not include links to any sources Mertens21 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Hell, strip away the origianl research, and it's still an article on a non-single and otherwise non-notable song. -- Kicking222 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Umm, so why is this song important?  All I get is that, if we were at the Chile Poppers fansite, we might be intrigued.  It's more nearly a forum post or blog entry than article, although it's a good forum post or blog entry.  I don't want to insult the author, but the article doesn't give much justification for itself.  Geogre 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -000
 * Comment - Could you give a reason why you think it should be kept? I mean just saying keep makes it look like either you were the author of the article or you want to keep it just because you like the song, which really isn't a good reason because I like the song, too, but the article has no sources and it looks like the information was just made up.  So if you could give a reason why it should be kept that would be great.  Thanks, Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepMany people including myself would search the internet looking for articles and finally come to a stop at wikipedia, it always has the right results.. this is one of those times.. This song is a to-be released single so even if it's deleted it will be put back up in a matter of weeks... KEEP IT
 * Comment - Where did you get the information that this is a to-be released single because it doesn't say it on the wikipedia page and there's no link to somewhere that says it. If it is going to be a single than it should be kept, but the original research should still be deleted.  If it's not going to be a single than there is no reason to keep it.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mallanox 19:25, 1 August 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.