Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get On Your Boots

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 speedy keep. While most of the commenters cited common sense and exceptions, they didn't need to. The article has multiple reliable sources thus meeting WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Boldly closing. Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get On Your Boots[edit]

Fails WP:NSONGS: has not charted, has not received any awards, and has not been covered by multiple artists. Article needs to be deleted and protected against recreation until Feb. 22. 2009, the first day that it can chart, becoming eligible for an article. —Kww(talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree. This song came out this morning digitally and is impacting radio like crazy already. Basing an article's relevance solely on chart performance and eligibility is antiquated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg46 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close:This nomination is (apparent) procedure getting in the way of common sense. This is the lead single of the new album for arguably the world’s most popular current band. Every other U2 single has an article – to delete for one month is just silly and a waste of time – the nominator themself acknowledges that some effort will have to be made to keep it deleted. Why not devote that energy to letting people improve it. Fan forums are abuzz with 1000s of posts in 24 hours, it’s crashed download websites, and I’ve bought it already from iTunes. Certainly notable already – even apart from the fact that its U2’s first album single in 5 years. It’s not like it’s a single from some garage band that’s never going to go anywhere. Suggest WP:IAR to allow for some common and constructive sense. (in fact, I suggest this nomination be wrapped up quickly so as we can get back to something constructive,--Merbabu (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps - I think we all know it's going to chart. Aren't there better things we could be doing rather than deleteing and rewriting. ???

Seconded: Though I recognize it isn't a "chart" per se, the song is currntly the seventh most purchased song on iTunes over the last 24 hours. There has been plenty of coverage of this song in both the written media and in terms of radio airplay, and just because it hasn't charted "yet" doesn't mean that it's worthy of deletion. It's more than notable. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Honestly, what is the point in deleting this article when it will just be recreated when it does end up charting? Are we making Wikipedia better by deleting an article and then forcing us to start from scratch again in a month? This is a pointless deletion nomination. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Speedy keep from me too... Sounds like someone's got a grudge against U2... hint hint... but seriously this article is by no means egregious. Save us the work of a rewrite. RShnike (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Song notability is much more than receiving awards, charting, and being covered. If all song articles had have those requirements, then most song articles would not be notable based on that comment, including every article in Category:Upcoming singles. This is the first single from U2's new album and has been written about by tons of media publications, and definitely deserves an article. Although the song was just released today (for airplay), there are plenty of sources out there that make this topic notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. While I have some sympathy that this was/is WP:CRYSTALBALLing, a quick search on google news reveals multiple sources [1]. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMMON. This "movement" to delete first-singles-from-album articles began with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You, I think. It was debatable there, but is just plain foolish here. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a "movement" ... single articles aren't supposed to be created until after the single charts, receives an award, or is covered by multiple artists. There isn't a "but it's by so-and-so" exemption built into WP:NSONGS. I redirect or nominate for deletion any and all singles that violate WP:NSONGS, and there isn't anything different about this one. If it was generally released this morning, I would agree that it's close enough that it probably isn't worth bothering, but so far as I can tell, it was some kind of promotional release: the article itself says that digital release is on Feb 15.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll from WP:NSONGS to the top of that article: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Read all the comments here. Maybe this case is the common sense occasional exception that it's talking about? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the bit about the digital release is immediately followed by and a physical format will be released the following day complete with a citation. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where would you gain consensus to ignore a notability guideline except at AFD? Don't get me wrong ... I genuinely believe this article should be deleted and creation salted, but if consensus goes the other way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SO can we move on? --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's harmed by allowing a discussion to proceed for the allotted five days.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no point in deleting a perfectly good article that no doubt will be re-created if deleted after the single is released. Matt (Talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the crapitude of U2. Nah, I mean keep per, if nothing else, WP:IAR. If the "rules" say this article shouldn't be, right now, they're wrong in this case. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while technically correct, I believe this is a time for common sense and ignore all the rules. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's no need to WP:IAR as it meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[2][3][4]. --JD554 (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2009 (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.