Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby)


 * 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 deletion, A9, non-notable song  ... disco spinster  talk  20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable remix of a possibly notable song. Noelia and Timbaland are notable, and can be verified to have created a song by this title. However, this article is about a remix created by an artist named Adrian Visby who has been the subject of long-term vandalism by and his sock farm. (See Articles for deletion/Adrian Visby.) There is no verification that Adrian Visby (if he even exists) has collaborated with Timbaland and/or Noelia on this track. The article was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, but that tag was removed by with the somewhat cryptic edit summary "see talk page". Since the track has not even yet been released, it is certainly not notable, whether or not the artist involved is notable (or even exists). The page author has asked forebearance pending the track's release and subsequent reviews. I have noted that if (a significant if) the track receives any significant coverage, the article can be re-created then. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncryptic comment It's not cryptic when you read the talk page. I don't like summaries that need to be in chapters. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry -- you wrote the edit summary before you edited the talk page, so at the time of this nomination, there was no explanation. Apologies.  My nomination rationale still stands.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I respectfully disagree with Peridon's assessment - to me this is a clear case of notability is not inherited. Even if the original track was notable, this adaptation is not. If it does become notable, then the article should be re-created. It should not retained on the basis of the creator's word that it might become notable in a few days... especially when the creator has a strong conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability is not infectious. If I remix the Bohemian Rhapsody, that remix is not notable. The same applies here. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Also, the artist tries pushing himself promotionally at the end of the article.  Ish dar  ian  14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Let me count some of the reasons WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. And there's more...--Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said the record was notable. I said that as the main performer was notable, A9 couldn't apply. You need BOTH non-notable singer AND non-notable record for A9. I actually suggested AfD for it. Please note that it's the record not the song that's under discussion. Also that if Pinkbeast, or anyone not notable in terms of having no article, remixes the Queen recording of Bohemian Rhapsody it will be non-notable more than likely, but will not be liable to A9 so long as Queen are on it. CSD is limited. AfD is much wider in scope. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Remixes of Bohemian Rhapsody, if notable, should be in the main article, per WP:NSONGS. This because they are "song" articles and not discography entries at WP. I am sure everybody knew this, but I do like an opportunity to repeat myself! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; as pointed out above, fairly clearly not notable ~ at least currently, no matter what happens in the future. Cheers, LindsayHello 16:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect into the article of the original song. The article seems to just put original research of the remix's composition unsourced info and facts about the singers involved in this remix to make this a long-enough article, but in the end fails to establish notability on its own. It be worth a redirect in my opinion. 和DITOR  E tails 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There isn't an article about the original song, and even if there were, leaving this as a redirect would require at least a mention of this version at the redirect target, which would give undue weight to this version. Given the long term vandalism concerning Adrian Visby, any remaining redirect would just lend legitimacy to this hoax.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite notable original performer, there's no notability for this version. (Not speedy - but AfD delete which makes fairly sure a repeat article must be an improvement..) Peridon (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (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.