Deletion of Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby)

Comment: Remixes of Bohemian Rhapsody, if notable, should be in the main article, per . This because they are "song" articles and not discography entries at WP. I am sure everybody knew this, but I do like an opportunity to repeat myself! Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)

Comment: fails . Also, the artist tries pushing himself promotionally at the end of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There ''isn't'' an article about the original song, and even if there were, leaving this as a redirect would require at least a mention of this version at the redirect target, which would give |undue weight to this version.  Given the long term vandalism concerning Adrian Visby, any remaining redirect would just lend legitimacy to this hoax
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I respectfully disagree with Peridon's assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMind_Blown_%28feat._Timbaland_%26_Adrian_Visby%29&diff=573692750&oldid=573657605 - to me this is a clear case of |notability is not inherited. Even if the original track was notable, this adaptation is not. If it does become notable, then the article should be re-created. It should not retained on the basis of the creator's word that it |might become notable in a few days... especially when the creator has a strong |conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:COI)