Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Time (U2 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 redirect to Zooropa. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The First Time (U2 song)[edit]

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

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. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a song from a Grammy Award-winning album by U2, one of the most popular bands in the world. It is definitely not the most popular U2 song, but it is plenty notable. Just because a song hasn't been released as a single, appeared on a music chart, or won individual awards doesn't make it not notable. According to WP:NSONGS,"Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It is evident that the nominator did not do any research on the background of the song, as a simple Google search turns up the following reliable sources that mention the song: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Additionally, the article currently cites two published books, and there are more publications available that detail the background and recording of the song. The book U2 Into the Heart: The Stories Behind Every Song has an entire page about the song, and other books mentioning the song can be seen here: [9][10][11]. The previously mentioned links are by no means a comprehensive listing of sources available for the song, but simply show that a quick Google search can establish the song's notability. Some perfect examples of notable songs by U2 that have not been released as singles or charted significantly include Acrobat (song), Exit (U2 song), Slug (song)—all of which are good articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm spot checking some of your sources, and most of them are just a sentence or two about the song in an article focusing mostly on a review or retrospective of the album itself, not the song. The fact that the album won a Grammy doesn't help the song's notability either. You've built up a wonderful argument for defending the album's notability, but much less so for the song itself... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't a comprehensive list of sources. Most of the links are from album reviews that would fit appropritately in the song's reception section. But my point is that such sources exist to support the article's notability. The article Slug (song) is about a much more obscure U2 song, so obscure that it was released by U2 under a name other than "U2" and its album did not sell well and was not critically receieved. The song didn't chart nor was it released as a single, but it has since gotten to good article status and it is currently undergoing a featured article nomination. Countless books and journal articles have been written about U2 and their songs, such that most tracks that have been released on studio albums are certainly notable. If I had the time, I would work on the article itself, but I shouldn't have to expand an article to prove its notability just so it can survive an AfD. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that you haven't really provided any sources where the song is the main subject. The one's I've spot-checked had the album as the main subject, and just mentioned the song in passing. You need to find more sources that focus on the song itself. (Or if you have, you need to single them out from the bombardment of sources above.) I haven't looked into the sourcing of any other U2 song, but that wouldn't likely have any bearing on the outcome of this discussion anyways. Good or bad sourcing of another song would not protect this song's article from deletion. I'd focus more on providing sources that provide significant coverage of this song. Meeting the WP:GNG is really the ultimate concern here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Restore redirect This isn't a notable song. Saying it is because it's on a Grammy Award-winning album by U2 isn't enough. See WP:NOTINHERIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect as above, not every song in an award-winning album deserves a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the article today to help further establish its notability. In reference to the previous two comments, I did not mean to imply that its notability is solely relied on the fact that its album won an award. The nominator's reason was due to a lack of souces, so I added some information to the background and reception sections of the song with some additional sources. There are plenty more sources about the song, but I wanted to list some print sources below that go into more detail about the song and could serve as excellent references for the article:

Live performances – [12]

Lyrics/composition/themes – [13][14][15][16][17][18]

I hope that the additions and new sources can help further establish this article's notability. I am by no means trying to bombard sources, as all of these can be used in the article. One of the biggest things about this song is its many lyrical interpretations by different sources, which I think would make a great section once it gets written. Of course, the song had no major chart action as previously mentioned, but there is plenty of third party notability available. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm not seeing any sources that have significant coverage on the song in particular. Too much of the sourcing (and even the content of the article) is more about the album on whole than the song in particular. Without charting or having any sources dedicated to the song, it would be better discussed in the album context. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hate to reiterate myself, but the fact that the song hasn't charted does not mean it's not notable, so I don't know why the commenters keep mentioning it. I have presented a diverse number of reliable third party sources, which do plenty to establish the subject's notability. Many of the sources are in print so I cannot link them directly, but they have pages that cover the song in detail. With the exception of two sentences about the background of the album, all the content in the article is about the song. Mothers of the Disappeared is a great example of a U2 song that did not appear on any charts, was not released as a single, did not win any awards, and most of its article sources are about the album. Yet it is obviously notable and is currently a featured article. This article has the same potential as that one, as well as Acrobat (song) and Slug (song), all of which fall in the same category. I have been writing U2 song articles for many years and I know for a fact that these sources exists, so I would not try to save an article from deletion if it did not meeet the necessary requirements. I have also reviewed WP:N, and it satisfies all the necessary requirements.

Yes, I (and likely the others) know that charting or being a single isn't required. Nobody said it was. It's commonly a helpful point of reference or indicator of likeliness though. If a song charted on a major chart, there's usually a reasonable assumption that, even if sources can't be found at an AFD, they're likely to exist somewhere, just because songs with that sort of visibility commonly have coverage about them out there somewhere. We're just saying that this song doesn't seem to have that luxury. We're pre-emptively throwing the htought out there, as people who want to "keep" an article commonly try that argument.
Can you point to the sources in particular that you believe show significant coverage for the song? Because most of the sources I've spot-checked have been album reviews that dedicate a sentence or two to the song in question here. That does not prove notability for the song. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage sources only cover the song's reception, which would naturally be found in review of the album. As with many other U2 song articles, most of the references are print sources. See articles like Slug (song) and Ultraviolet (Light My Way), which are good articles

[19] – about a page about the writing/recording of the song and the meaning of its lyrics
[20] – half a page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[21] – full page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[22] – full page section about the writing and recording of the song
[23] – full page with interviews with the band members about the song
[24] – discusses the song's live performances on a concert-by-concert basis throughout a chapter
[25] – full page about the song's background and meaning

–Dream out loud (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non notable song. Most sources are related to the album, not specifically about the song itself. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's certainly content but is also still best connected to the album itself thus redirect. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.