Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conformed to love

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. --Coredesat 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conformed to love

Conformed to love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I find it hard to believe that even unknown, non-iconic songs merit their own articles. Furthermore, this song was not released on an album and seems only to be circulating around the murky reaches of the internet. Only about 7,000 google hits, many are myspace pages or wikipedia mirrors. No evidence that this song is particularly notable; nothing about the song, even its existence, can be comfortably verified per wikipedia policy at this time. PLEASE do not !vote keep just because you are pretty sure the song exists, or because you looooove Lauryn Hill - provide some kind of verifiable source! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could have prodded this but I assumed there would be some argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As a rule, unreleased songs are not notable. GassyGuy 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album it's on, or if it's not on an album, then delete. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. ShadowHalo 10:59, 19 January 2007 (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.