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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlight (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is 99% trivia, hardly any content at all, 1 reference, this article serves very small importance anyway, If someone believes this article is needed then they can recreate it with more referenced content ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The song charted and thus passes WP:NSONGS. Both the chart history and "trivia" regarding the ET influence can be referenced to the Billboard artist biography. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A song that charted at #5 in the US is difinitely notable. Deletion rationale is decidely flawed.--Michig (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets required notability criteria. Rewrite it if you don't like the way it's written.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NSONGS. Whereas I have great sympathy for deleting articles with poor/no references or mostly trivia it's not the WP way. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this article is kept, it will need a stub notice, and all content that requires references that weren't provided will be deleted, It's going to need major improvements. Let me see what I can do right now ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some improvements to it ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements look fine to me. It's good to see an editor prepared to improve an article after nominating it for deletion.--Michig (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes the 2 criteria for WP:MUSIC#Songs; it's charted, and in my view there is enough verifiable material to allow article to grow beyond a stub.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A notable song, written by notable songwriters and performed by a notable artist. I'm predicting snow.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Keep in mind, I did improvements to it recently, don't forget to check the history ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Special thanks to Scarce. Many articles aren't keep or delete, but "improve" which Scarce has done. It's a pity that I, or one of the others that said keep, didn't do it and back our words with actions. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really? That's odd as I seem to remember hunting for and adding references to support the chart positions and ET inspiration [1]. Perhaps Scarce should have read WP:BEFORE and improved the article before the four keep votes above made it clear that the article was indeed notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:36, 29 June 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.