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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Albums and songs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Lana (album)

(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]
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: 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)

Break a Spell

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

Fails GNG and WP:NMG, recommend redirect to Mami_Kawada#2013–16:_Parablepsia Emm90 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Anime and manga, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't make sense for this to exist, and it doesn't even have any references. 190.219.101.169 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked the jawiki version to see if the article can be saved by translation, but yeah, no luck. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natrag Na Voz

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

Non-notable album. References are junk. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these references contain proof NovaExplorer37 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BPM are not valid references, and do nothing to establish notability. And there is also now Draft:Natrag Na Voz, which has been declined twice. And User:NovaExplorer37 put a false Featured article on the article, which I deleted. David notMD (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well i could only use article wizard now all of a sudden i can create wiki articles?????? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and User:NovaExplorer37 please read the policy on notability before writing another article. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but these are the only sources!!!! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37: That is the point. If enough solid, reliable sources can't be found then the subject does not reach the standard of notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any way i can make the article better? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if u google "Notable Albums by Zana" Natrag Na Voz is mentioned. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so i added another source this time it mentions the album! and another one which mentions it about anniversary and a little type of biography that ok now or should i add more? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot what sources i put on: One from a book and one which features Zana’s anniversary which also mentions the album (and on a book too)! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NovaExplorer37 please read WP:Notability, especially the general notability guideline section of the policy. If there are no reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage, i.e. cover the subject in detail, the subject shouldn't have an article and nothing you do will magically make the subject deserve an article. Mentions in books or Google searches aren't enough, the source needs to actually spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail. Did a major newspaper publish an article reviewing the album, for example, or talking about the production process? Or did an author of a book devote an entire chapter to talking about it? --Richard Yin (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in ex-Yugoslavs Books some did but rarely got published i See but this article is still a deserve to stay in wiki i declare. NovaExplorer2 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Refs are being added during this AfD period, but the refs do not appear to meet WP:42 standards. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see now there two references that are alteast mentioned about the album

Best Regards- Noor NovaExplorer37 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both those references are non-RS. That means they are unreliable. IMDB is unreliable per WP:IMDB. The other one is a directory listing and is junk. Similar to discogs. You should not be writing articles. There is clearly a WP:CIR issue here. When this is all finished, I will be taking you to have a chat with an administrator. scope_creep^Talk 22:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jabuke i vino

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zana (band)#discography; the song itself does not seem to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about one song on a studio album, the article about the album is also subject of a AfD. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodirni mi kolena

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the covers have to indicate at least some level of long-term significance, at least for the eponymous song. Did you check those sources that appear in a Google Books search for Zana "Dodirni mi kolena"? --Joy (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Per WP:THREE which is best practice, can you post them up there so I can have a look at them. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually care that much to argue either way, I'm just asking if that was part of your WP:BEFORE routine. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the Google Books references (to address the above discussion), only one book mentions the subject twice; the others all only mention it once. I don't see the subject passing WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon Through Your Speakers

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

Article about an album by a band that doesn't have an article on here. Doesn't establish why this album is notable. LupinOnTheFritz (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can only find links to Discogs and social media. Does not seem to be a notable album from 20 some years ago. No critical commentary, no reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic review is a user review, thus ineligible per RSMUSIC, and I can't say I'm confident in RoughEdge. But both AllMusic and Exclaim! are valid reviews from reliable sources. I don't think it's in as bad shape as claimed above. There's also a mention in this article about the artwork of David Ho which would be worth including if kept. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything else, but for an Interscope release at that time I have to imagine there's more out there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the cover of the album says Armageddon Through Your Speaker, not Speakers, so the name of the article is incorrect. Still doesn't appear to be very noteworthy based on the sources found for "Speaker" instead of "Speakers". LupinOnTheFritz (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwitches

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with no indication of notability or importance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content here, only infobox. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This has a good amount of history that dates back to 2011. At the very least, retarget back to Goblin (album) and/or draftify the current content. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goblin (album) per above. No point in draftifying as this is just an infobox which could be easily recreated and isn't worth saving on its own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect to Goblin (album): an infobox alone does not an article make, especially since the redirect was itself the result of the previous nomination (and the article obviously had more content then… which still wasn't enough). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goblin (album) - Back in 2014 the song article was redirected to the album, and since then there has been no further coverage of the song in its own right to merit a standalone article. Also note that someone later retargeted the term to sandwich for an unconvincing reason. Yesterday an inexperienced editor reverted the redirect and formed the no-content song article that we see now. There is little likelihood that it can or will be further (re-)developed into a full article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goblin (album), no point of userfying this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another might be a Redirect to Sandwich^[Humor] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is looking for info on the lunchtime meal, they are unlikely to accidentally type "sandwitches". Someone who literally types that term is more likely to satisfy their midday hunger for knowledge at the album featuring a song of that title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Partner (album)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. The Dusted review is the only one I've seen covering this album significantly but the reliability of the website is unclear ([1]) and even if it's reliable, it's insufficient. Frost 07:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarrionSeasoning. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grow The Fuck Up

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Vial (band) - fails NALBUM. Should never have been moved back out of draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vial (band) - The 2024 re-release of the EP got an announcement in a reliable punk publication ([2]) but no deeper analysis is offered. Otherwise the EP (while relatively recent) has earned no in-depth coverage that can offer material for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor's Too Far Away

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

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not make sense? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typed a little fast there. What I meant to say was: Why does it not make the case? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been mentioned in official publications. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Become the Other

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

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not make the case for notability? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielTheMusicMaster Is this a vote? If so, please update your comment with a vote like Delete, Weak delete, Neutral, Weak keep, or Keep. If it is not, please add Comment or {{Comment}} which produces the following:

Comment:

Hope this makes sense! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I understand now. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the album warrants an article, seeing as how it was included on the Official Charts. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A City Dressed in Dynamite

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

Non-notable album; shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dom har glömt

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

The article fails WP:NSONG with no chart information, and it fails WP:GNG with no significant descriptions of the song in the literature. The supplied citations are useless: four of the five are about other things, and the fifth is a Discogs.com link that merely proves the existence of the single. Discogs cannot be cited per WP:ALBUMAVOID, and it certainly does not establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rat's Brains & Microchips

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Lacks reliable sources that give significant coverage. Skyshiftertalk 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Araba 2004

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGLE. Unreferenced. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Appears to satisfy WP:GNG as the music video was a subject of scholarly analysis by multiple authors: [3] [4]. I can't find anything beyond these two authors though. The two authors both appear in the first source, but I don't think it stops the sources from being independent of each other. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mustafa Sandal or Mustafa Sandal discography: not convinced a separate article is necessary Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child of God (album) as an alternative to deletion. Per nom, does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:SIGCOV - but that doesn't stop this particular author from creating articles that fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child of God (album): agree with Baston's reasoning but would merge. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus against status quo, but delete, redirect, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Child of God (album) not enough content or coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child of God (album). Album is notable, information here could find a home there, but WP:NSONG isn't met. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

Contents

Albums and songs

Lana (album)

Break a Spell

Natrag Na Voz

Jabuke i vino

Dodirni mi kolena

Armageddon Through Your Speakers

Sandwitches

Karnaval (song)

Silent Partner (album)

Grow The Fuck Up

The Floor's Too Far Away

Become the Other

A City Dressed in Dynamite

Dom har glömt

ANNO: X

Rat's Brains & Microchips

Araba 2004

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

Album and song proposed deletions

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.