Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Albums and songs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Albums and songs|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Albums and songs.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Albums and songs[edit]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans[edit]

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

Non-notable split record. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru)[edit]

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

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mach61 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin. --Cavarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Records[edit]

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

Don't think this satisfies the notability guideline. The second source literally leads to the Billboard Pro home page, so it doesn't help at all. I can't check the first source because I'm currently at a school where the link is blocked, so someone should check that. My Google searches on Light Records yielded nothing useful. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and Companies. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination, which had malformed syntax that was transcluding Wikipedia:Notability and thus breaking {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Several possible merge targets here, including its founder, its co-venture partner, and its parent label. I suspect there is coverage of this label in Christian-interest magazines, though; a little digging by specialists might turn up more WP:ATD here. Chubbles (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's hard to overstate the impact of Light Records on Contemporary Christian Music. Absolutely one of the most important, influential labels in the genre. If you go to Google Books, and search "Billboard Light Records", then click on one of the issues and search "Light Records" at the "Search all issues" you'll find a plethora of coverage. Also significant coverage in "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" ISBN:9798216065562. (addendum: the Wikipedia Library is down for me, so I can't search JSTOR or Newspapers.com.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Billboard, and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk[edit]

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

Failed PROD, dePRODded because Google isn't through enough for a BEFORE check. Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. /Julle (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. /Julle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song)[edit]

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

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [1] and this from the UN [2]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same song? [3], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [4], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Magick[edit]

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

Found no signs of notability (some notable publications covered the announcement/lead single but it's not exactly NMUSIC#1 level) and redirected. That's been undone, so now we're here. Got a response on my talk page including "That's an actual published album by a known rock band that has been producing albums for decades"; just wanna emphasize NOTINHERITED here in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch wrote that it was “finally” available, meaning it was anticipated and notable. Repeating that several notable publications did write about it as well.

This group has released several singles that don’t need their own pages, several live albums that don’t need their own page. However, this album was released on various media and noted in the press. This is a notable article, and sits alongside other albums in their discography, for informational and educational purposes.

I would like to note that people come to Wikipedia to find information, and undoubtedly will look for this album’s information. Deleting the page does not serve users’ interests at all. Louie Mantia (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "finally" just means "after a long time", and it has been a decade since their last album. And even if that were a good sign for notability, the piece is mostly an interview in which the writer only really says the same things about the album that the announcements cover, including the 93x "article" which is stated at the bottom as a press release from Frankly Media. The Riff review is good, but it's still not enough, and I know there's nothing else because I already looked and saw all of what you've added but that was it, hence why I redirected in the first place.

I already brought up NOTINHERITED because it was clearly necessary to mention, but I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well, namely WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING which pretty much all came up in your case just now. And if users are "undoubtedly" looking for this info, it can always be added to the band's page where I sent the redirect and readers will find it there just fine and be satisfied. I'll even support that as a merge argument if you're on board for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article was nominated for deletion was there were “no signs of notability.”

After that, it was immediately noted by you (QuietHere) that there were some notable publications. There is also at least one notable review, from Riff Magazine. I think we can safely say that “no signs of notability” is an inaccurate assessment. An argument can be made that there are “few” (by what measure?), but I think “none” would be too far.

I think these few sources specifically address the requirement to prove it is notable, but as @Oaktree b also pointed out, it may be too soon, as the album was released only a week ago. It’s possible more will come up, but as of this moment, it does seem to me that there are valid, suitable sources already cited in the article.

Entirely separate from my argument and unrelated to the bit about deletion, I am a bit hurt by the condescending tone you’ve (QuietHere) brought to this, notably “in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up” and “I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well,” both of which imply some level of superiority, which I think is just hurtful and not constructive for this discussion. I think your argument can be made without that. Louie Mantia (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also found this in the Tennessean [5] which is an interview with the singer, but talks about the album. With the American Songwriter article, just barely enough. Is likely TOOSOON as the album was released on the 3rd of May, more might pop up. Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this Riff Magazine link [6], it's not listed as a RS in Wiki Project album, but it seems ok. Another interview where they also talk about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion and input from editors. But from what I'm reading here, deletion is off the table and we are trying to decide between Keeping a standalone article or a Redirect/Merge closure. Either way, the content would be preserved in case there are more reviews in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Album and song proposed deletions[edit]

for occasional archiving