Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Air Tonight

Utter rubbish. RickK 03:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a legit song and the page can be rewritten accodingly. Besides I've at least heard a story similar to that before, even if I have no idea if there's any truth to it. Keep. Pteron 04:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what? The copyrighted lyrics? The unsubstantiated urban legend? RickK 04:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, we can quote passages without violating copyright. This page is terrible, but a real article could grow from it. If it's really no more than an urban legend though, then ~~delete~~. Pteron 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, urban legend. See Snopes article on it at [1] --Stormie 04:34, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
The only thing worse than getting an Internet hoax in your e-mail is seeing one on Wikipedia. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, this is a famous story. I've heard it many times, and it was popularly referenced in an Eminem song a few years ago. Keep or at least merge into an urban legends article. Everyking 05:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's right, I remember again. This was mentioned on Stan. That article even mentions the story. Keep and mark story as famous urban legend. Pteron 05:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither interesting nor notable. Agreed w/ Lucky 6.9. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Although an urban legend, it's an interesting and popular one, and should be described and noted as such. Don't delete inaccurate articles - make them accurate. (Alternatively, hang out on VfD and yell at other people for not making them accurate instead of doing it yourself.) Snowspinner 06:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alternatively write an article on the album Face Value and redirect to it. But the hoax is not famous or interesting enough to be worth putting in an article on the album IMO, leave that to Snopes. The song is not IMO worth an article of its own, and certainly not when we don't even have an article for the album yet, although it is most deservedly on the list of albums needing articles. Andrewa 07:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it with a strong focus on the urban legend. Tentative keep only to prevent the false version from reappearing. Rossami 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We want people come to Wikipedia for information. Having no article on this urban legend will leave the curious still wondering (and will encourage false versions). We don't have to compete with Snopes on depth or breadth, but the major legends should have an article here.
Keep, but restrict the lyrics quotation to what is actually enlightening to the story. -- Jao 10:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! As it stands now, very useful information on a famous song. The urban legend is linked to the song --- I've heard it --- and it's good to have the debunk link too. Good stuff. Ensiform 03:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is useful. Andrewlevine 06:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JamesMLane 07:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's improved greatly, and if we delete it, it's such a common topic that people will bring it up again. Johnleemk 12:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks very useful as is. DS 17:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]