Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Dig It (song)

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 per WP:SNOW. Also, underwent a 10Kb expansion. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Dig It (song)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I doubt the encyclopedic value of the article, but if it must remain, I am in favor of moving it as a subheading to the "Martin Coogan" article. Redivy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Must say I'm surprised to see this nominated – a famous song in Britain, where it was a hit twice. Through its European chart success (again, twice) I think it demonstrates notability and at least suggests the article could be easily expanded. Which it can – I can try and give it a go myself as just looking at it I'm imagining ways to fill in some critical commentary. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make any necessary corrections and let us know when you are finished and we will review it. Redivy (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done a bit of Googling and added some coverage. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm assuming most sourcing is in paper sources. Some hits from the very early 2000s, when the song was already old [1], [2]. One review here that i can't open [3]. With the more than extensive proof of it charting, I think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song charted on 4 national charts, two of which were in their top 20. Common sense would dictate that sourcing exists for a song of that sort of popularity (as mentioned above, likely in hard copy paper sources since the song is from the early 1990s.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is still a well known song in the UK, easily the band's biggest hit (and I'm not sure why this would be moved to Martin Coogan's article rather than the Mock Turtles, who are far better known as a band than Coogan is as an individual, or the Turtle Soup album). I've found reviews of the song in Melody Maker issue 2 March 1991 and Record Mirror issue 9 March 1991. Richard3120 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As TangoTizerWolfstone said, I'm surprised by this nomination. Charting alone is strong enough to make notability clear, and I see at least a handful of definitely reliable sources in there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with everyone above. Before the nomination, the article may have needed some expansion and cleanup, but even so, it still had plenty of evidence of chart placements that easily satisfy the requirements for a notable song. The reasoning in the nomination also violates WP:UNENCYC. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing a valid deletion rationale. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited charting and critical reviews show meets WP:NSONG. ResonantDis_tortion 16:27, 14 April 2024 (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.