Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana (album)

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. ✗plicit 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lana (album)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm afraid a simple talk page discussion won't do any good here. This is just a deluxe like any other special edition. It even helped the standard album back to #1. Yes, it is fairly discussed in RS because that's what happens when you tease new music. This is no different from Scarlet 2 Claude which is also fairly discussed. Trim and merge will do here. dxneo (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. dxneo (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By all accounts this passes WP:GNG; the reissue has been reviewed by Vulture, Rolling Stone, Variety, Pitchfork, etc. Apart from reviews, we have this critical commentary from Variety about its long series of delays. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am undecided because there is indeed a precedent at Scarlet 2 Claude for merging the two versions together, but Lana is also receiving coverage as an independent new release. If this tactic (already advanced by Doja Cat and SZA) becomes a trend -- releasing an album's worth of new songs and saying it's a reissue of a previous album -- it may require a higher discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums about what constitutes a truly "new" album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Music#Reissues, I'm not sure whether or not Scarlet 2 Claude is truly a case of applicable precedent here. I don't see any draft or AFD discussion suggesting that it was ever a standalone article, and I don't see any talk page discussion about it, making me think that the reason the reissue does not have its own article is simply because no editor has taken the time to create one, rather than it not being notable. Leafy46 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scarlet 2 Claude was just a practical example. I've seen more of these and it's honestly confusing as to whether one deserves a standalone article or not. Most are trimmed and merged into their respective originals/standard editions. dxneo (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Scarlet 2 Claude is a precedent for not splitting into two album articles or for not having two articles from the get-go, as is the case for SOS/Lana. Either way, SZA's previous album was two years ago and she just released 15 new songs totaling 46 minutes, so why not just say Lana is a new album of its own? I don't get it, but if this tactic becomes a trend it is still worth a higher discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This meets the WP:NALBUM criteria 1 and 2, and there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Medxvo (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above, the reissue album meets the criteria for a standalone article. The coverage and reviews should be enough. And the comparison is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 15:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has received plenty of independent coverage, including two reviews from Pitchfork and Rolling Stone which I just added to the article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike Scarlet 2 Claude, Lana has enough material and notability on its own for a standalone article. Flabshoe1 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As mentioned above by several others, the reissue album meets the criteria for a standalone article. Also, if the news today that both "BMF" and "30 for 30" have been formally sent to impact different radio formats (Top 40 and Rhythmic Contemporary, respectively) as the third and fourth singles is accurate, SZA and her label are clearly promoting this body of work as its' own project. Trainsskyscrapers (talk · contribs) 4:46, 9 January 2025 (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.