Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Wild
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JForget 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Get Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NALBUMS no references or cites, very little context at all, doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article Alan - talk 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song was a hit in the UK, making the Top 20 of the national singles chart, so it meets WP:MUSIC notability requirements. (And how many songs have had a perfume named after them?) I've added some sources, although more would be welcome. Markfury3000 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NSONGS. It's a charted song, the article is reasonably detailed and (now) sourced. Gongshow Talk 10:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 5 December 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.