Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Day


 * 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 redirect to Zooropa. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  02:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dirty Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My redirect of the article was reverted saying that this article passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, well it does not. There's no independent third party notability, no major reception surrounding the song and no major chart action. Deleting this article, is not detrimental to the encyclopedia at all. There is just one source from Neil McCormick's book which does not establish the song as independently notable, and the other source is just a primary reference. — I B  [ Poke ] 08:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Support   redirect . This page lists lyrics and when it was performed, but has no indication of notabality. After 10 years, if there's no indication that it is notable, it should probably go. Prof. Mc (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Prof. Mc (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Plausible search term, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG for having its own article. Sergecross73   msg me  13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as it's not notable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per nominator. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As a long-time editor of many U2 song articles, I can say that this article definitely has extensive third-party coverage, and that it meets all the requirements at WP:N and WP:NSONGS. The article is currently poorly written and lacks good sources, but they do exist.  Most reliable sources for "lesser-known" U2 song articles are print sources, as there have been countless books written about U2's music over the years.  Many (not all) U2 songs are notable enough for an article based on print sources available, and this is definitely one of them.  A Google Books search will show some of print sources available that discuss the song in detail.  I own a handful of these books and can say that there is enough coverage available on this lesser-known U2 song to easily turn it into a good article, just like Slug (song), Exit (U2 song), Ultraviolet (Light My Way), among others. – Dream out loud  (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point. If its not expanded and those sources are not amended to the article, there's not point in keeping the article. We don't create articles in Wikipedia thinking of a future point when it will pass NSONGS. In its current form, it does not pass it, therefore it should be deleted. Simple. — I B  [ Poke ] 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not beside the point. WP:ARTN specifically says that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable" and "even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."  Stating an article should be deleted without redirect, is poorly written, has no one working on it, or would not be detremential to the encyclopedia if deleted are all poor arguements for deleting an article. – Dream out loud  (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dpon't try to lecture me on WP:WAX. I know them very well. I have clearly mentioned that it does not pass WP:NSONGS, even from the sources you mentioned. There are passing mentions of the song, not independent notability. Your faulty logic would make every damn song released by every artist as notable then. — I B  [ Poke ] 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My logic in no way implies that every song released by every artist is notable — that is complete utter nonsense and it shows that you are clearly failing to understand my reasoning. You have not stated any solid case for this article failing notability.  Lack of chart action does not imply failed notability.  Your biggest argument was the lack of third party coverage, and I was clearly able to state that that is not the case, as plenty of print sources have covered this topic.  If you don't want to be lectured on Wikipedia guidelines, then you should adhere to them.  – Dream out loud  (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not finger-pointing here in anyway. Just a reminder that we're all after the same thing here--improving the encyclopedia. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL Prof. Mc (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2016 (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.