Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind in the Gutter


 * 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. Consensus is that the minor chart positions mentioned are not enough to save this. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mind in the Gutter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only charted very low on major charts. Says that the song received "mixed to positive reviews from critics" but the only hit on Gnews is just a reprint of the lyrics. I find no proof that any reputable music critic gave this song any review. All other claims are egregious OR and not a single source exists to qualify any of the info at all. Redirect will most likely be undone by a fanboy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No ELs at all. Nada. If you assert notability, as in "the song is notable for making heavy use of auto-tune", that should be backed by something. Way back when we wrote the policy on no original research, this was the article of which we were thinking. Does not belong in this encyclopedia.  K rakatoa    K atie   05:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, on balance a reading of WP:NSONGS would suggest we don't, at present, need this article. Yes, the minimal chart presence might qualify it, but this article makes a number of assertions about the song without laying out even one source for them. When we have that, we can have an article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a mass of unsupported OR without a single reference. I can find no Google hits to support any notability of this song. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor charting should not be considered the magic bullet to notability. No coverage from reliable sources. There was a "version" of this article that did have sources: . But to consider that reliably sourced would be a tragedy. Rehevkor ✉  17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Yes the song did chart, according to the article, but where is the proof??? The article is well-written (kind of), but their is no references detailing the page! I am more towards a delete. Unless the article can provide correct references for everything in the article. Especially the charting, which could seal the article here. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note According to WP:NSONGS, as long as the song charted, it stays! It doesn't matter at all how good or bad, or how unpopular the chart is! See Patron Tequila or I Ain't Thru. Reff these charts and this article is basically good. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts. Note that the chart must be significant, not just existing.  Plus there are no sources to verify the claim of having ranked.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the source, supposedly, can be found in this book, as well as in one of the Billboard magazine issues released after August 28, 2008 - I've checked some, but couldn't find the song there. --Ezhuks (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Shame, because it's a well written article. Totally unreferenced, and this statement seems to seal its fate: 'The single, as predicted, failed to make an impact on any charts.' We don't (yet) have articles about subjects that are notable for not  being  notable. Kudpung (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (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.