Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

Shortcuts

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

Shoes (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Liam Kyle Sullivan#Albums. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:I like and also this was a hige deal in the late 2000s! Ten Years of “Shoes,” the Story of the First Great Viral Music Video, Betch [[1]] Early YouTube Star Kelly Performs Viral Song “Shoes” For Pride in Los Angeles [[2]] Liam Kyle Sullivan — YouTuber Behind 'Shoes' and 'Muffins' Videos — Talks Early Success and What He's Up to Now (Exclusive) [[3]] I think if anything it should be merged with Liam Kyle Sullivan Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles just talk about the songs, whose notability are not inherited from the album. The album still needs significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability criteria for albums, which I'm seeing none of. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (song)

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

I believe that this song failsWP:SONG & should be a redirect; obviously the person who created the existing redirect into an article thinks differently. Seeking a broader consensus.TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the redirect's original creator, I don't care whether it is kept or not so long as it isn't fully deleted, the article certainly is a likely search term. mftp dan ^oops 15:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anyone for Doomsday? – The WP:FORK for the song is not needed. Svartner (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep charting song with substantive article and many reviews. If this cannot be kept, it should be redirected or merge with history kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felt Tip (EP)

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

There are no references in this article. Searching online, there's one or two articles that mention the song with the same name, but no coverage of this EP. I don't think it meets the notability requirements of WP:NALBUM. – numbermaniac 13:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Is All (band) per WP:ATD. – The Grid (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Is All (band)#Singles and EPs: Since it was limited to 500 copies, it's unlikely for it to meet the notability criteria for albums, so a redirect is appropriate here. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Whitesnake

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Whitesnake discography#Compilations. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, England, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Steely Dan

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

Fails WP:ALBUM. 1 review by AllMusic is not enough for notability. Needs additional piece of significant coverage. Redirect to Steely Dan discography#Compilation albums as an alternative to deletion? Mika1h (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New York. Mika1h (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steely Dan discography#Compilation albums: Yet again, another album in the 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection series that fails WP:NALBUM. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Οἶδα (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This seems to be the logical thing to do with this. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, will use this as a shameless excuse to promote my new essay, User:RedShellMomentum/20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection albums are not notable. RedShellMomentum ☎ 05:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. As with many artists, Steely Dan's music has been compiled and re-compiled on many albums, which has resulted in the band having had more compilations released than studio albums. This particular compilation didn't hit any known album chart nor did it receive significant reviews or news coverage that we know of. It doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ringside (band)

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

I could not find any existing reliable sources on this band that prove this subject's notability. The only existing information consists of the band's song listings or otherwise trivial information (see WP:MUSICBIO). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and California. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd also like to also like to nominate the following two articles for deletion under the same reason:

Ringside (Ringside album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lost Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did not find any notable sources that could warrant an article for these two albums. Similarly, a third album-related article (Money (EP)) linked on this page has the same issue, though it's already undergoing its own deletion discussion. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- including Money (EP). Per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review [4] Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article on the band itself per WP:MUSICBIO#1 with bylined coverage available, and now added to the article since nomination: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Furthermore, covers of the band's first single Tired of Being Sorry achieved significant WP:GOODCHARTS success therefore there is likely a pass on WP:COMPOSER too. In my view there is no need for the album articles and these should be redirected to the band. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Real California License

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this album. JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to P. J. Proby: Unable to find any WP:BEFORE results that weren't retail listings or primary sources. Nil🥝 23:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Money (EP)

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

Article cites no sources. I couldn't find any reviews (or any other WP:SIGCOV) so I doubt this is notable. lp0 on fire () 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. lp0 on fire () 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ringside (band) as an WP:ATD for this non-notable release. Although I'm in doubt that the band itself is notable at all based on their present article. λ NegativeMP1 19:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ringside (band): Per Negative – although that article could certainly do with some work Nil🥝 23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Ringside (band)~~: On its own, this album does not warrant its own article; there aren't even any stand-alone reliable sources that exist on it. Until further notability is found, this article should redirect to the aforementioned page. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, I could not find any notable sources on the Ringside (band) article, and I've placed it under discussion. Due to this, I now consider to just delete this article instead. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringside (band) per WP:ATD. ResonantDis_tortion 10:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tune the Rainbow

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

The article has sources that fail WP:SIGCOV, thus making the subject not notable. When I try to search for the subject in Google News or on Google in general, the independent, reliable sources that come up mention the song in passing. I think it needs to be redirected to the album Single Collection+ Nikopachi again, as the album is notable and has more significant coverage. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Anime and manga, and Japan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The single placed at no. 9 on Oricon (a music ranking that has been used for decades in Japan). lullabying (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of reliable sources is something that could be improved, but asking for deletion for the article? I find it excessive and unnecessary. This is a relevant subject, as the other comment said, the song was a Top 10 hit in Japan and is one of the most popular songs of this artist. If we applied that criteria you mentioned (e.g. "as the album is notable and has more significant coverage"), let's delete 90 per cent of Wikipedia articles about songs we don't know then. クラウデド (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve - Reaching a high position on the official Japanese chart may make the song notable under WP:NSONG #1 (as stated in that guideline itself). The song appears to have some other factors working in its favor, such as being placed in a movie. Such tidbits can be reinforced with better sources, particularly from editors who know Japanese media. The nominator is correct that the article has some fan trivia with unreliable sources (particularly tweets) but those can be removed through standard editing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Single Collection+ Nikopachi for failing WP:NSONG. NSONG clearly states that a song charting may mean it's notable, as in sources are more likely to exist for it. It does not state that a song is automatically notable because it charted. The guideline still requires multiple sources to have discussed the song in-depth, aka WP:SIGCOV, which this song does not seem to have. And the above call to improve the article despite the apparent lack of sources beyond "this song was in a movie" feels like a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. λ NegativeMP1 18:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you cite those criteria, I can give you, for example, all the articles somebody created of singles of Miho Nakayama, I don't see anybody trying to delete those articles. Anyway, here are examples of reliable sources, since you're citing the WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST: CD Journal, Oricon, NetLab, USENの音楽情報サイト「encore（アンコール）, FlyingDog クラウデド (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three of these are CD listings (WP:PRIMARY) and the other two aren't SIGCOV. One is just a bare ranking without any real prose. I'm unconvinced, sorry. As for the other single articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. λ NegativeMP1 19:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CD Journal actually has a mini review written, it is not a merely CD listing: "若手声優シンガーNo.1の彼女が、前作からわずか2ヵ月でニュー・シングルをリリース。タイトル曲は、本人も出演している劇場版アニメ『ラーゼフォン多元変奏曲』の主題歌。儚げな歌声と菅野よう子のサウンド・プロダクションがベスト・マッチの全3曲。", and on NetLab, what do you mean by "without real prose"? did you actually go through the page? it is written there: "2003年にリリースされたシングルで、劇場版アニメ「ラーゼフォン多元変奏曲」の主題歌。光がはじけるような明るさと郷愁を同時に感じられるメロディーが心地よく、歌の世界に没頭できる名曲です。コメント欄には「悩んだ末にtune the rainbowに一票」という声をいただきました。" クラウデド (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you're right about the other link since its info from Maaya's record label, my bad. クラウデド (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here's a news from Anime News Network about 10,000 people voting their Top 2000s Anime Songs With Female Vocalists, where "Tune the Rainbow" ranked 13th. Link クラウデド (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also added additional sources of the song being covered by other artists: Maki and the Idol Master クラウデド (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the people voting to delete, please see the section of Legacy and impact, I tried my best to find and include reliable sources there for proving the song's relevance (Anime News Network, Polling sites Charapedia and NetLab, Crunchyroll). クラウデド (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Apple!!

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. There is no reception section at all either (see WP:AKON).

As much as I hate to list this article at AFD when there's an open peer review for it, I want to mention off the bat that I'd be ok with userfying or draftifying the article until source(s) are found, or perhaps merging with a Touhou Project-related article. I haven't looked at them yet, but there are links to several sources on the peer review page that may or may not be usable. Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, Internet, and Japan. Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The listed "third" and "fourth" nominations were April Fools AfDs; this "fifth nomination" is thus only the third legitimate nomination. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Touhou Project. Honestly I'm shocked that the article was kept in the past. The consensus was based on one reliable source worth of SIGCOV. WP:NSONG and WP:GNG requires multiple, with WP:THREE being a good benchmark brought up in video game related deletion discussions. I ran a notability check a while back, and appropriately tagged it for notability, but shortly afterwards revoked it once I saw it survived AfD and I didn't feel like bothering. But I've checked both English and Japanese sources, then and now, regarding the song. I do not think it is notable. To refer back to NSONG, "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". Any claim to fame about this song is generally about its use as an internet meme; so what? Where's the sourcing for basic information wanted for any song, like lyrics, composition, critical reception, etc.? This is basic information any song article should have. If it doesn't have that stuff then it shouldn't have an article. Any influence that the song has had on internet culture can probably be summarized on the article for Touhou Project, it's not independently notable. λ NegativeMP1 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Touhou Project#Music. It lacks significant coverage, and previous AfDs didn't demonstrate that much of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Touhou Project#Music per above comments. I know, I’m obsessed with the Touhou Project, but this article doesn’t have a lot of sigcov. “Bad Apple!!” Is already mentioned in the Music section of the Touhou Project page so why not merge or redirect “Bad Apple!!” there. Icepinner 23:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Touhou Project#Internet memes or Music per the above. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Touhou Project#Internet memes per everything above. I like this song, but as known with one of my other fandoms, simply liking something, even if a lot of people do, does not warrant notability. Tekoy9x, Techy9x but he forgot he set up 2FA (also the talk page) 19:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a little too busy right now to look at all the sources, but while the song lacks SIGCOV, based on some of the coverage I checked at first glance (as well a few I found: three more about recreations of the MV - from the same site BTW - [9], [10], [11], as well as an in-depth write-up on the MV and a smaller one), pretty much all the sourcing that would count as SIGCOV is SIGCOV for the MV and the memetic trend it spawned. First option would be to Move to Music video of Bad Apple!! or Recreations of the music video of Bad Apple!!, next would be to Merge to Touhou Project#Internet memes. (BTW I'm surprised the song isn't notable.) ミラP@Miraclepine 04:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it was moved, it'd probably be to bad apple!! feat. nomico, which is a redirect that exists consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Music video of Bad Apple!!: Similar to the above comment, there's non-trivial coverage of the music video in Japanese-language sources, even though the song itself isn't that independently notable. Some additional references I found from a quick search (all from distinct sources, as far as I can tell): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Additional list of 17 articles] There are also quite a few English sources covering various versions of the video, many of which are already included in the article. Moving the article seems preferable over than merging into Touhou; most coverage focuses on the creative production methods of various videos, rather than on its origins, so it doesn't really gain much context from being merged into there. Crestfalling (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just a more simple disambiguation for the music video, like Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video) (as in Bad Apple!! (music video))? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Ghost Riders

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

There are no references in the article. The best I could find was this review about the song's album, which mentions the song for 1 sentence, but that's about it. I don't think there's enough significant coverage available to meet the notability requirements of WP:NSONG. – numbermaniac 14:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whip It On: Fails WP:NSONG. No SIGCOV in RS. paintdvd ^☎ 00:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs and yells of the University of Trinity College

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

Completely unsourced, I doubt these songs are notable. Maybe could merge into Trinity College, Toronto. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 10:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this can be merged into the article. Lyrics are copyright and we're also not a media repository. Maybe the songs can be mentioned but that requires adding sources. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a current student. I don’t understand well the inner workings of Wikipedia, but many of these songs and yells are indeed notable and this article is the main way for students to easily get them if they don’t have them memorized, and stay in touch with the history of the university. They are of course difficult to source by nature, but it is worth noting that this article has real value to a community of students, where you can see phrases like Niminium Cervisi (the name of one of the songs) on plaques in the halls. If it is a question of relevance, this article should stay. If it is determined for some reason this article needs to be deleted for reasons besides relevance, while I should like the entire article to stay, at the very least there are a number that are still culturally significant and should be merged into the Trinity College Article -housemaster1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housemaster1111 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTLYRICS and various other provisions of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that the College has a series of unconventional chants can be explained at its main article, if supported by reliable sources. For the previous commenter, Wikipedia is far from the only website in the world where lyrics can be reviewed by students. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 17 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legion of Shadows

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

A search returns nothing and all provided reviews fail WP:NALBUM 1. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search provided plenty of reviews from 3rd parties, as opposed to press releases written by the bands which you seem to allow. The article is a STUB. You need to allow people a chance to build upon it. Raybeezer (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument for deletion here is failing notability, something not established by press releases. Those are only used for WP:ABOUTSELF uncontroversial claims and have no impact on notability whatsoever. If you read WP:NALBUM 1. it states that only reviews appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published contribute. It is not hard to see at least 2 of the 3 sources here are self-published. Just because an article is a stub does not make it immune from Wikipedia's notability guidelines which I would advise you to brush up on. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party reviews from 3 different webzines and even Amazon are not press releases. How are they self published? You appear to have a conflict of interest here. Raybeezer (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Raybeezer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana. The listed reviews do not appear to be from reliable sources and therefore do not seem to count towards WP:GNG. Will change my mind if more reliable publications like those from WP:A/S are found discussing the album. λ NegativeMP1 06:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rule on reusing refs from other articles? A similar group reuses the same blog refs, even when they were published years earlier, and don't mention the album. Raybeezer (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Raybeezer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect: to Nox Arcana. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Ravenswing 21:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. I looked for sources but only found storefronts and the usual but unreliable forums, storefronts, and databases. Woodroar (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonshire - Volume 1

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

No sign of notability (search returns nothing). Only sources provided are of the band itself. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a body of work and a compilation. It's also a STUB article, which means you should allow for it's development. It seems like you are randomly removing just to be destructive. Something you have been warned about before. Please be more considerate. Raybeezer (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography: Cited entirely to primary sources, not notable at all. paintdvd ☎ 03:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. I looked for sources but only found storefronts and the usual but unreliable forums, storefronts, and databases. Woodroar (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ebonshire final compilation album. Ebonshire - Volume 5 has already been forwarded to the Ebonshire main album as of Nov 15. Let's do that with all 5 volumes. The main compilation album being the 6th and final in the series. #1, #2, #3, #4, Then I think the refs will support keeping the article, which I am gathering. Raybeezer (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography: No secondary sources seemed to take note of this "album" ~2025-34248-84 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~2025-34248-84 joined 1 day ago, specifically to remove content from Nox Arcana pages. I think there my be a conflict of interest. I have been rescuing dead links, and fell down a rabbit hole trying to work my way through each album in order, but I have not actually edited anything except fixing dead links to existing content. I agree that the Ebonshire album has little press coverage, but the band itself is very notable. The fact that I have found so many dead links and I'm not even halfway through, tells me they have never edited their own pages, unlike some who do purely promotional edits nearly every month. I just don't think ~2025-34248-84's vote should really count. Raybeezer (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a temporary account, the equivalent of an IP editor role that Wikipedia used to have. See WP:TA. Woodroar (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So, anyone might take action on a page that requires a vote, then stack the vote. I see. Raybeezer (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, though. Whatever happens to the article will be based on the strength of editors' arguments, especially when they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion, as long as they're not being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonshire

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

Search returns nothing (beyond a rather funny mention on something I didn't know existed [12]). Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. You are being destructive and will be reported. Raybeezer (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography: Cited entirely to primary sources, not notable at all. paintdvd ☎ 03:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Wouldn't in make much more sense to redirect the 5 Ebonshire EPs to the main Eboonshire album? For example: Ebonshire - Volume 1, Ebonshire - Volume 2, Ebonshire - Volume 3, Ebonshire - Volume 4, Ebonshire - Volume 5 ---> to Ebonshire. I've taken the initiative to copy all the refs from 1-5 into the main article. It seems rather odd that Allan's proposal is to delete only the first and last editions. Raybeezer (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense (and would be policy) to delete the whole lot if notability cannot be established by independent reliable sources. Brunton (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In establishing notability, what is the policy on reusing refs from other articles? I noticed that a similar band uses the same 2 to 4 blog refs over and over again, which have nothing to do with the album release, so just thought I'd ask. Raybeezer (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it'd be fine as long as the references themselves meet the usual criteria, such as Wikipedia:NALBUM. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per paintdvd and existing policy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Nox Arcana. No significant coverage found, and I'm not impressed by the SPA making threats. Ravenswing 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Fortuna, Ravenswing & nom. Individual volume articles are also nominated for deletion and have the same problem as the main article, so adding them hasn't resolved the underlying issues. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Nox Arcana#Discography per above. I looked for sources but only found storefronts and the usual but unreliable forums, storefronts, and databases. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Symphony

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

Still fails WP:NALBUM as it did before. A search ironically provides a good reason against a redirect WP:ATD here seeing how "The Haunted Symphony" is used rather a lot by, you know, actual symphonies doing Halloween events. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even finish adding references and a cover, when you jumped in for Afd. You've been warned a number of times for abusing the Afd and redirect tools. Chill out and allow an editor to add refs. Raybeezer (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography: Found no sources in my BEFORE, but if someone else finds sources, please ping me, and I'll be more than happy to change my vote. paintdvd ☎ 03:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Nox Arcana. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. If Raybeezer has found such reliable sources, they're free to present them. Ravenswing 21:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nox Arcana#Discography. I looked for sources but only found storefronts and the usual but unreliable forums, storefronts, and databases. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Nox Arcana#Discography is a reasonable ATD meantime while the author can work on improving it. an alternative would be to draftify.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2025 (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.

I Hate You with a Passion

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

Disputed prod. I was not able to find any reliable sources about the album. A Sputnikmusic user review is not reliable, and Allmusic isn't a review, not even a star score. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 14 November 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. jolielover♥talk 09:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be deleted. JuanBoss105 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any significant coverage, only passing mention in a possibly AI-generated book and its inclusion on the Billboard charts. Redirect to Andre Nickatina as an WP:ATD. Katzrockso (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It did reach 2 Billboard charts, problem is the Billboard website now has all of it's chart history behind a paywall, so it would be hard to source and the Allmusic website which used to display the Billboard charts back when the article was created, lost the rights to display the Billboard charts well over a decade ago. Beast from da East (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't reach any national music charts, which I believe is the standard for WP:NALBUM. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andre Nickatina. If no reliable sources which cover the subject in detail exist then it is not notable and no amount of charting or certifications can help that. Even WP:NMUSIC states sources are still required and charts/certifications don't automatically make something notable, just that the odds of it being notable may be higher. I've got an essay here which discusses and clarifies this. λ NegativeMP1 06:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support redirecting it to Andre Nickatina. JuanBoss105 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm fine with redirecting, which makes us four. Regarding charts, WP:NALBUM only says that "a recording may be notable" if it for instance charted. Still, "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). Geschichte (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Box (Jade Valerie album)

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

Cited to a website selling the album. Could find no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

06:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me (G-Dragon song)

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

For starters, as big of a name as G-Dragon is, the sources don't support a standalone article on this particular album track - it should be redirected to the main album page.

Also, the author of this enWiki article has falsified several references. This is worrying, and I've presented a selection of the issues I found below:

[13], which is used to support the lines The lyrics portray an assertive romantic plea, repeating the line "Take me, I'm yours". Critics noted that it represents one of the album's lighter and more playful tracks does not actually support that text - the source mentions "Take Me" once, saying American singer-songwriter and drummer Anderson .Paak and legendary guitarist Nile Rodgers garnered attention by featuring in "Too Bad" and taking a guitar solo on "Take Me," respectively

Korean outlets such as Kyunghyang Media and The Electronic Times described “Take Me” as a key example of the album's nostalgic yet contemporary sound. is supported by refs [14][15] - but neither source actually discusses the track, they mention in in passing alongside a list of other album tracks.
Vogue Singapore described the song as "an ecstatic ride" [...]Vogue Singapore praised its lively rhythm and vibrant guitar section - cited to "G-Dragon's Übermensch is an artistic rebirth" - but the URL on that reference is broken and I can find no evidence that Vogue Singapore ever published an article by that name or produced that quote
[16] is a blog by a fan (not an RS), but, more troubling, the enWiki author claims that the blog said that Take One is "a song that captures G-Dragon’s confident charm". That quote does not appear in that blog post, and, indeed, this Wikipedia article is the only place were that phrase appears.

Given the fictitious sourcing & quotes I'm proposing this article be deleted and a redirect recreated to the album. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Korea. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article have enough info to stand alone, I've seen many articles of songs with only info about song credits 5 sources maximum amd nobody trying to delete them, while the article about 'Take Me' has many info, keep and improve. Or keep same energy and delete tons of articles about songs that had 5 sources. KLIFE88 (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the author, would you care to comment on any of the fictious quotes, references, and lack of source-text integrity? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t realize I had mixed some of the sources since I’ve been working on multiple pages. All the links open normally for me, so a note on the talk page would’ve been more helpful than going straight to deletion. I’ll definitely fix all the issues on the page. It would also be better to let other editors help improve the article rather than rush to delete it. As I mentioned before, I’ve seen many other song pages with just an introduction and barely any context or sources, unlike “Take Me,” which actually has plenty of information to justify keeping it. KLIFE88 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing more than just the incorrect link as an issue. The Bias List makes no mention of the quote a song that captures G-Dragon’s confident charm at all, and the "funk pop" note is from a comment on the article, not the article itself, and there's no mention of a "throwback" either. Kyunghyang Media and The Electronic Times don't even describe Take Me in any detail besides listing it as one of the tracks. I am strongly leaning towards delete because the text of this article is not supported by its sources - it would be better rewritten from the ground up. Not only that, but charts do not make a song notable on its own, especially one like this that has not been released as a single and is not discussed outside of the album as a whole. -- Recon rabbit 15:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on the article on the next couple of days to improve it, no need for deletion at all, also you said "charts do not make a song notable on its own" so why other Korean acts pages with songs like this isn't up for deletion? Examples (Yes or No (Jung Kook song), Never Let Go (Jung Kook song), Please Don't Change, Closer to You (Jung Kook song), Snooze (Agust D song), Amygdala (song) (basically majority of BTS members song) + and many other pages related to Korean songs) I've notice only BIGBANG related pages always goes for deletion quickly rathen then fixing it, while others aren't, either ways if those pages can stand alone basically by charting then so should 'Take Me', and I'll be fixing all the issues in it. KLIFE88 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update, the entire article is fixed, feel free to review it, and if you intended to delete it then I expect as well for all other article of I mentioned to be deleted as well first, since they way less noticeable then "Take Me" KLIFE88 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can give an answer to part of this. I am already looking at these other singles that you mentioned (thank you for pointing it out). Yes or No (Jung Kook song) should be redirected to the album since it was not released as a single, while Never Let Go (Jung Kook song) was released as a single and had significant coverage about the song itself. -- Recon rabbit 19:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of their song pages are quite basic, with just a few sentences and chart info, so you can check their discography. For the article I'm working on, I'm trying to improve the articles by adding more details and context, and I take every note I receive seriously to make updates. I believe improving and expanding content is better than deleting it. I'd really appreciate feedbacks and suggestions so we can make the articles as complete and accurate as possible. KLIFE88 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Übermensch. It charted and has passing commentary but that doesn't automatically meet WP:NSONG. Other songs usually have standalone articles because of substantial coverage independent from the album. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Reservations

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

The naming of this album makes finding sources impossible, but I doubt proper ones exist. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Central Records#Grand Central Records compilation albums. Only found a passing mention in this book: [17]. --Mika1h (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving