Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSICWP:DSMUSIC

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Music. 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|Music|~~~~}} 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 Music. 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

Music

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]

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]

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]

Samba-rap

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

This looks like interwiki spam. It was already speedily deleted on ptwiki and Samba-rap. The topic is basically original research because there are no reliable sources, no academic papers and nothing that actually verifies “samba-rap” as a legitimate or documented term. Every source available is either self-published or fails basic reliability. There is no evidence that this concept exists in any meaningful or verifiable way. Vornak (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG

Oakchris1955 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wouldn't exactly call it spam, the articles are in RS. First is an interview, second seems promo for the singer described. It does feel like SYNTH though, the stories are all about the same two or three people, rather than the music as a distinct category. I don't find anything else that uses this term. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samba: It is certainly a documented term (e.g. [9] & [10]), but I've not found enough scholarly coverage for a standalone article. Best to mention/merge the genre as an offshoot of samba, ~~and delete/redirect this article.~~ Nil🥝 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Edited 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nil NZ, pages that have been merged cannot normally be deleted, see WP:MAD. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 00:49, 18 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]

Jazz run

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

This article's content has been merged into Marching band. There is not enough citable material to make this topic notable enough for a separate article. Lnc2005 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. jolielover♥talk 07:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is an unsourced stub, better merged with marching band. Athanelar (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marching band. No need for a full article on this topic, but since the content has already been merged, the correct procedure is to redirect the namespace and put a notice about the merge in both Talk pages (per WP:PROMERGE). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marching band: Per Doomsdayer Nil🥝 21:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Merge notices to both Talk pages, which will make the Redirect quick and easy if that is the final decision. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Viable search term that has been covered in various scholarly sources... just not enough to stand on its own. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by the nominator, as noted above. All that is necessary now is a redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Video on Trial episodes

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

This list mostly seems to embed (most of) the contents of the lists of the show's individual season episode lists, but those have been sent to AfD lately for only being sourced to the MuchMusic website and lacking coverage in secondary sources. Unsurprisingly, this overall list doesn't fare much better in any of these regards (and indeed does not seem to transclude much if not any of the unacceptable sourcing of the season articles) — and is increasingly being broken now that the first three seasons' articles have already been deleted. I can't imagine there being much (pun not intended) reason to keep this going forward; putting the actual list contents back in it (they were seemingly split off around 2011) would not resolve the sourcing issues. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I've occasionally had to edit the episode list articles of late to wikilink comedians who've gotten over the notability bar in other ways that had little to do with this show per se, the truth is it's just not a particularly useful set of information as constituted — the value in such a list would inhere in being able to find properly sourced information about which specific music videos were put on trial in each episode, not just which comedians happened to be the jury. But this only has the latter, and none of the former. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 4

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

All of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: ALL seasons to the main page about the show, these really should have been batch nominated, they're all in the same format (primary sourcing with nothing else for notability) Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 5

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

All of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Trial season 6

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

All of the content on this page is built from the MuchMusic website which makes the show. In order to justify a split from the main article, we would need WP:SECONDARY coverage on this season. Otherwise its a WP:BADFORK.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 02:56, 22 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 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 [11]). 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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Idol

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

References do not show notability per WP:NEVENT. Specifically they do not show WP:SUSTAINED coverage in reliable news outlets. Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and United Kingdom. Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was unable to find any coverage or sourcing that was independent of the event. There's coverage like this, but it reads as a republished press release. Nil🥝 21:52, 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.

Neil Amin-Smith

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

British political advisor ('SpAd') and sometime musician. Not elected, so fails WP:NPOL as a politician and brief career with Clean Bandit doesn't confer notability. Redirect to Clean Bandit as AtD (his only possible claim to notability is the band, not as a political advisor) reverted, so we find ourselves here. Coverage presented is for Clean Bandit, not Amin-Smith. Wonder if there's a COI involved here, but honestly am not bothered. If not Redirect, Delete. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Politics, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his notability as a political advisor is underscored by his several mentions in various reputed outlets (Politico, The Guardian) as Rachel Reeves' foremost advisor, and in his topping of The Standard's 'List of Sexiest Londoners' this year, both of which were my reasoning for constructing the article (as opposed solely to his time as a violinist in a band). I don't see why he should be considered any less notable than two of the other Clean Bandit members Grace Chatto and especially Jack Patterson, neither of whom are reported on individually as much in recent years. Amin-Smith does fail WP:NPOL (after all, civil servants aren't politicians), but fulfils every aspect of WP:GNG. Profavi1 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As argued by the previous voter. The current article is lopsided and does not need to repeat basic info on Clean Bandit and Smith's place in the band. Conversely, the section on his political advising career can be expanded because he has received notice for influencing some powerful people. He does not need to satisfy WP:NPOL because he is not a politican running for office, but per WP:GNG he has achieved basic notability as someone who has been covered in reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he hasn't - that's the issue here. The RS references on this page are all about Clean Bandit... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the sources currently in the "Political career" section have a hard time introducing him without talking about his previous music career, but that is standard journalistic practice. After that obligatory coverage, my stance is that the sources are indeed about his current work as an advisor, however brief. Here are some more that follow the same pattern but still name him as an advisor to the powerful: [12], [13]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lovely Arab phrase, the dog of a Sheikh is not a Sheikh - Advisors to the powerful are not themselves in power. Or, to be a tad more pithy, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - notability is not inherited. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully two-thirds of the current sourcing relates to Clean Bandit. That leaves the only claim to fame being mentioned incidentally in coverage or winning a "sexiest" list by one publication. That doesn't meet the significant coverage standard for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:39, 19 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!} 19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A special advisor isn't notable, the violin playing could be, but he's a rather minor member of the band. Sexiest anything isn't quite notable either. Most of the coverage is about the band, not about this person. Being on a politician's staff isn't notable, I'm not sure what's left... Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the sources cited are quite subpar, additional sources exist, thus he meets WP:GNG.Cornerstone1949 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do, please, feel free to provide links to three reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here, or on the article? Cornerstone1949 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere, TBH. Here's fine... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Amin-Smith has had an interesting career. Perhaps we can all agree on that! If he was just a musician, maybe you'd have a case to just redirect to Clean Bandit. If he was just a spad, maybe you'd have a case under WP:NPOL to delete. But he's been both and there's enough sourcing to write an article about him. In other words, he meets WP:GNG, including a Politico article all about him, and a lead role in a Standard article, and even an Attitude piece about his relationship ending. Bondegezou (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleto and the Cletones

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Band lacks individual notability for own article as it's solely connected to Jimmy Kimmel Live!, plus the bandleader (Cleto Escobedo III) already has an article. If deletion is not an option, should be merged into either CEIII or JKL page. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Television. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want it merged, why did you bring it to AFD? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common practice in order to prevent revert wars and to get a solid consensus. Edited nom to include this. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cleto Escobedo III: per nom, nearly the entire article is about him anyways. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but with Jimmy Kimmel Live! Hyperbolick (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cleto Escobedo III - A merge can straighten out a few group-level activities like their guest appearances, but there is very little to merge otherwise because (as stated by a previous voter) the article is almost entirely about Cleto and there is already more robust info about his career at his own article. The group as a whole has not achieved notability in their own right, beyond their leader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleto Escobedo III with selective content mergers to both Cleto's article and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - either suggested target is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the band continue on after the death of Cleto Escobedo III? If so, a redirect to him wouldn't make sense. There’s a bunch of bands under Category:Radio and television house bands that seem similar in notability to this one. House bands for major television shows, particularly those with individually notable members like Jimmy Earl, the bassist of the Cletones, seem to warrant their own Wikipedia articles. Thriley (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made this edit which I guess will be relevant when the time comes to make any changes resulting from the merge.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Jimmy Kimmel Live!, as the band is continuing on as "The Cletones". CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 14:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Should be included in Cleto Escobedo III. It was his band and legacy. Guz13 (talk) 17:53, 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:

[14], 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 [15][16] - 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
[17] 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]

The Masked Singer (German TV series) season 12

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

Notability Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why it is for deletion. It seems fine to me; we got sources from multiple websites for the main judges, host and contestants, we got all the parts for it the guess judges, contestants, episodes and ratings. We got all the places for the pictures of the main and guess judges, host and for who was behind the masks. We also are needing it since the season has started, so what is it about the page that has it for deletion because I don't see and/or get it? Maskedman111 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right; this article should not be deleted. ~2025-33800-57 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also want to know the next episodes’ performances and the identities of the masked participants in the following episodes. ~2025-33800-57 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to the deletion discussion. aesurias (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Germany. jolielover♥talk 05:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Single-word nominations are not something we should spend time on. Geschichte (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Low-effort nomination that doesn't lay out with this article should be deleted. Cortador (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not explaining enough!

This article has been previously speedy deleted by @DoubleGrazing [Main public logs - Wikipedia], with the reasoning being (A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content)

I'm not sure if there is enough evidence for significant coverage of this issue, so I wanted to post this on here to see what you all think.

@Maskedman111 the notability article says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

Also, this article is a one time event, and the notability article says If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

This article could also be mentioned/merged in The Masked Singer article.

@Geschichte @Cortador sorry again for not explaining this deeply enough, and let me know if you need anything else. Again, I'm not against keeping the article per se, just wanted to see what you all think of it. Thanks!

Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I speedied this a couple of weeks ago, the entire content of the 'article' consisted of the single word "Mask". Needless to say, that should not be seen as any sort of precedent for deleting the current article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Got it. Can I ask what you think of the other reasoning I just gave? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting, thanks for that information, but my vote is that we still keep it. Maskedman111 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we should keep this article ~2025-33800-57 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a discussion now that the nom has expanded on their nomination. I'm also going to semi it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But why semi it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because it has obviously been canvassed off wiki. Drive by TAIV participation is not going to establish consensus Star Mississippi 13:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days and there still haven been any new comments or !votes. Why is that? Did the relisting not work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive By (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No substantial coverage, the only appearance of this band in reliable sources is because one member had to cover for Frank Iero, where it is maybe one sentence mentioning that this band was opening. It is notably annoying to search for this band because of Drive By (song) -- Recon rabbit 18:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic staff bio [18]. Reviews by Ultimate Guitar [19] Melodic.net [20] as well as some others [21] [22] [23] [24] Geschichte (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charting album and add'l sourcing above meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:38, 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]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 21 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: [25]. --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]

Gambino Family (group)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No in-depth coverage of the group. AllMusic says they made one lousy album and disappeared.[26] Another AllMusic page supposedly about the group has a bunch of white guys pictured when the project was all or nearly all black guys. This is truly a nobody band with no reason for a page to exist about them. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've stated ad nauseam, the group passes the criteria set forth by Wikipedia:Notability (music) which states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This group, while it only has one album, charted on the Billboard 200 at #17 and the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop chart at #3. They were signed to two major American record labels at No Limit Records / Priority Records. They've made several appearances on platinum and gold RIAA certified albums including the I'm Bout It soundtrack and Mean Green. They've worked with platinum-selling artists like Snoop Dogg, Mystikal and Master P among others. It has been reviewed by Allmusic, probably one of the most cited professional music review sites on Wikipedia and has been reviewed by The Source magazine, one of, if not they biggest hip-hop publication of it's time. Yes, there is not a ton to be found online about the group itself, but given that it does pass Wikipedia's standards for notability, albeit rather softly, and the article will likely remain a stub, I don't see how it can be argued that they shouldn't have an article here. Beast from da East (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm hearing from this is that the band article should redirect to the album article. Remember that They've worked with... is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but you still need sourcing to back up the article. Charting isn't a free pass to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is a free pass for musical artists, not even a platinum-selling record. There are sadly no rules for inherent uncontestable notability and that's why we waste our time discussing over a few kilobytes of data. Everything you delete in 2025 has the potential be sorely missed in 2050 or later. TigerFromEarth (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." follows the statement that a group may be notable if that has happened. The album is notable for its failures; the group isn't notable. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article. I previously PROD-ed this article when I could not find reliable sources to verify the claims in the article, especially as they refer to BLPs. These issues still stand, but as the group's album may be considered notable then I'll suggest a redirect here. Nayyn (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any musical act with their own album in the Top 20 of the Billboard album charts should have an article. If a high chart position in Billboard doesn't prove inherent notability, what does? The attempts to erase a formation from history with such a proof of success not even 30 years later make me shake my head in disbelief. TigerFromEarth (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind keeping the album page Ghetto Organized to preserve the band's chart achievement, but the band itself isn't subject to any in-depth coverage in sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They had an album in the Top 20 Billboard charts as well as a platinum seling album: I'm Bout It Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable with a chart position, but you still need sourcing. I can only find links to the crime family using the same name, nothing about this musical group. Not sure a redirect would help, notability is still rather weak. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean proof that they were #17 on the Billboard 200 Album charts? [This] proves it. Page 114. The website worldradiohistory.com has very many Billboard magazines as complete PDFs. TigerFromEarth (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)
Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)
Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)