Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needing/Getting


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Needing/Getting

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSONG - no critical acclaim and has not reached any notable position in any charts (although several people have apparently seen it on YouTube). A merge back into OK Go might be the best outcome.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Passes the GNG. NSONG is an alternative means of being notable, but this is clearly notable by the GNG. --M ASEM  (t) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per above; songs don't have to chart to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow  Talk 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Lots of sources, especially for the music video. It still is notable even if it didn't chart, and the song has also received some reviews. What a pro. (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Video has been hailed and is part of advertising history. 12:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like most things OK Go does, the song is unremarkable, but the video is eminently notable. LukeSurlt c 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.