Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean, Clean

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. Reclosing. Since it's a relisted nom, it can be closed as soon as consensus is clear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean, Clean

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

Similar to the article Elstree (song), this song is not notable enough to have it's own article. Yes, maybe the song charted in the UK, but I was unable to find any in-depth information on this song. EditorE (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What search did you perform? Given that charting means it passes WP:NSONG, "I couldn't find anything" isn't necessarily an adequate deletion rationale, and "that's okay, we'll keep looking" may then be an adequate response. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Google News, the sources that mention the single are associated with the album. The Age of Plastic, and the 2010 re-performance of the Buggles, and there's really not a lot of significant coverage of this song. This search appeareantely found no reliable news, newspaper or magazine articles on this song. Also, because the song charted is not one of the requirements on WP:NSONG to have a song have it's own article, and this article follows none of those guidelines (EditorE (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

NOTE: Editor has subsequently expressed that he withdraws his nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a single by a notable group from a notable album; alternatively, merge and redirect to The Age of Plastic. (Off-topic: I like this song, but wish I had a better idea what it means.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because it barely passes WP:NSONG doesn't mean it is required to have a stand-alone article. WP:NSONG says that it may be notable, not that is always notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. As a top 40 hit it has real world notability (which should be what we look for our guidelines to point towards) but the article as it stands lacks enough information to make it worth keeping (a different consideration to notability). If more is found (reviews of the single will almost certainly exist in print sources) at a later date that would allow the article to be expanded, great, but we shouldn't keep one line articles if there's a suitable place to merge/redirect to. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Ajsmith141's improvements now mean we have an article worth keeping. Good work. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article and provided references, however I still expect there would be more critical reception etc from sources outside of the internet and UK press of the time. Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (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.