Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Sparrow (song)

Jack Sparrow (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SNOW. Nimuaq (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't call it a snow day yet, but LA Times and Entertainment Weekly are already sourced and certainly reliable enough. The EW reference itself has some background information that could be added to the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sources is not WP:SIGCOV nor is there enough verifiable material to create a reasonably detailed article The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Well, we could use this, or maybe Salon.com... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO it's already detailed enough according to WP:NSONG, ie. beyond stub. Agent L (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Turtleneck & Chain--Scott Mac 15:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michael Bolton is quite notable. Also: material is relatively new, so it's too soon to judge notability. Agent L (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Bolton is notable is rather covered by keeping this article. As for "too soon to judge" - if notability isn't established now, we don't guess about future notability - we act on the current facts and revise later if that changes.--Scott Mac 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]