Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Day (Dream Theater 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. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Day (Dream Theater song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words.

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a batch with ten other Dream Theater songs, see Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under. The closing admin, user:SilkTork, concluded that since the multiple listing was complex, the nominated articles agreed as the least notable should be redirected, and the rest should be relisted individually. Per this and my 21:56, 12 August comment at the previous nomination, I have redirected The Silent Man, Hollow Years, Home, A Right of Passage, and Forsaken, as there appeared to be rough consensus to delete them, and am individually relisting Pull Me Under, Take the Time, Another Day, Lie, Through Her Eyes, and Constant Motion

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - The song charted, so meets notability. The article is short, but contains enough information not to warrant deletion. Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability alone isn't enough to satisfy NSONGS. Even if a song is notable, a separate article on that song is only appropriate "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." Is a separate article really warranted? It is hard to understand why. A delete or delete and redirect is appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you believe that there is not enough information to warrant an article, WP:NSONGS goes on to say "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." So I am not sure why you are insisting on a "delete or delete and redirect".  A mere redirect is what the sentence you quoted deems appropriate if there is not enough information to ever grow the article beyond a stub.  But the article has already been rated start class for almost a year, so there are clearly plenty of editors who agree that the article has already grown beyond a stub (not to mention whether it can ever grow more), and so even a redirect is unnecessary. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to Billboard, the song did NOT chart. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to allmusic, it DID chart. |THEATER&sql=11:h9fexqy5ldhe~T51 Although I would normally accept Billboard as a superior reference to allmusic for information on Billboard's own charts, Billboard recently redesigned its site and not all older information has been accessable yet. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Song charted, so it can get an article, but I wish there was more information so that the article can be expanded. The Weak Willed 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite the title of the article, the article is not clearly about the song, but includes content related to a 3-song EP/single including a recording of the song. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (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.