Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of covers of U2 songs


 * 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   no consensus. There seems to be agreement that too many non-notable acts are listed, but beyond that there's no agreement. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

List of covers of U2 songs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A trivial article. There is no evidence from reliable, secondary sources (WP:RS) that the phenomena of covering U2 songs is particularly notable or significant. All relevant information can be merged into the correct single/album articles. ' ArticlesFor Redemption  '' 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete! Ginormous example farm and coatrack. Almost all of these acts are non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the whole reason this article was first created was to prevent the clutter building up in the individual song articles and present it all in a better and more controllable format in a single article; in some cases, the lists built up so much that they took up more content then the actual songs! This article presents a simple and easily worked and viewed method of presenting that article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically WP:ITSUSEFUL is your argument. What about the fact that this lists a metric buttload of not-individually-notable artists? Ever heard of an examplefarm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard of an "examplefarm" so you'll have to excuse me on that one. Also, I haven't merely said "it's useful" and then left the discussion at that; I provided context behind my reasoning. The article is a useful navigation tool and has been a success in acting as a central hub for this information. I would hardly consider artists such as the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, DC Talk, Kane, Mission UK, Bellefire, Les Paul, The Bravery, Kurt Nilsen, and Dashboard Confessional (to name just a few) as "not notable"; and if this information is not notable enough for this one article, what makes it any more notable for the individual song articles as the original nominator suggests? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that it's indiscriminate, listing random garage bands and otherwise non-notable acts? If you insist on keeping it, let's prune the detritus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pruning the detritus is fine by me, though that will take some considerable time and what you and I agree on to be notable acts may differ. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the non-notable artists are the ones that are redlinked or don't have articles: Trent, Disco Saints, People Mover and that's just the first couple songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Significant readership - well in excess of 100 hits per day. We are afterall creating articles for readers (and not afd nominators). High quality and each entry is referenced. (and, very odd behaviour from he nominator - a very "new" editor who's sole activity seems to be nominating afds. hmmm) --Merbabu (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - OK, so add that page to my justifications for keep. There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion.... As for "otters" and "bats", please speak plainly. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehm, I think that's his user name... Lampman (talk)


 * DeleteNot needed--yutsi (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT. This stand-alone list is too broad in scope and indiscriminate in its nature; it therefore isn't a suitable list topic. For the purposes of comparison, consensus at a similar AfD for a list of Smashing Pumpkins covers was to delete. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * THIS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this curious mix of primary-sourced material and unknown bands. Cover version is a notable concept, U2 is a notable band, but the intersect is entirely arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:SALAT. The list is not indiscriminate as the title defines its scope.  And much of it is sourced to secondary reliable sources.  But, per User:TenPoundHammer, the non-notable or non-secondary sourceable bands need to be pruned. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep only because U2 are one of the most covered bands ever. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is well referenced and it keeps lots of cruft off the song pages. It would probably be a good idea to prune the acts without articles, unless good evidence can be presented that they are in fact notable (though it seems almost impossible that a truly notable band at this point wouldn't have its own Wikipedia page.) Lampman (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I've already said, I'm amenable to to pruning the non-notable acts. I won't bother undertaking that until after this AFD is concluded though, since there are more pressing obligations on my time than shortening an article that may end up deleted anyways. However, it's worth noting that many of the unlinked singers, bands and albums in the lower three-quarters of the article are unlinked solely because they are already linked in previous sections per WP:OVERLINK (for example, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is linked in "All I Want Is You", so for mentions in "Desire", "One", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", etc. they are not linked again). As a result, much less may be removed than people are envisaging through a quick skim for blue links. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I voted "keep", and it seems like that will be the result. I would highly encourage pruning, but also linking all linkable acts. In the spirit of ignoring all rules, I think it would be sensible to link all acts in every section simply because people might be led to this article through a redirect leading to the section on one specific song. In that case it won't help them much that the act is linked higher up. Lampman (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep well-referenced, interesting, non-trivial information. gidonb (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a mere catalog of information. Many cover versions aren't notable, and we don't need a list article to catalog them all. Notable covers are best discussed in the context of individual song articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove non-notable cover version via normal editing. It's quite possible that someone would be interested in finding notable covers without wanting to read every single song article. Polarpanda (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (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.