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. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article qualifies for speedy under CSD-G5. It was created by Xtinadbest, a user with over 20 socking cases and 50 socks (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive). Unfortunately, due to a disagreement between me and the processing admin ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&oldid=340586229#Your_speedy_decline_on_Innocent_Heart), I have been forced to take it to AFD. Even leaving CSD G5 aside, the article fails WP:NSONGS: it has never charted on a legitimate chart. The "Maltese Singles Chart" is not a chart, it is simply the playlist of a single station. —Kww(talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Technically, by the letter of the law, this does not qualify for G5, though some of us might think it does by the spirit of the law. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Why don't you think it qualifies? It certainly does by my reading.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- and while we're at it, check out Ruth Portelli. Equally unknown... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and another thing: we have another sock User:Mimmirocks. I'm just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Mimmirocks to the SPI report.—Kww(talk) 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, I would speedy it as g5 if not for the dispute referenced above. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (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.