Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Shortcuts


Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Albums and songs

Embarrassing Times


Embarrassing Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability as per WP:NALBUM. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added a review from Yellow Green Red, plus some contextual mentions from other outlets. ElektraFlowers (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
We also have the notice about the re-release from White Crate:https://whitecrate.org/embarrassing-times-by-tony-molina/
and the album's placement on a monthly recommendation list: https://www.woodyjagger.com/2023/11/15-recomendables-novedades.html
Most/all of the press mentions revolve around the 2023 reissue. ElektraFlowers (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Los Angeloser


Los Angeloser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Hang Cool Teddy Bear because the article fails WP:NSONG. 1 chart position is not enough for notability. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Estrella Por Estrella


Estrella Por Estrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Joshua Chuquimia Crampton. No evidence of the album meeting WP:NALBUM; the only in-depth coverage in the article is a review from a Wordpress blog, and I can't find evidence of much else. JTtheOG (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hail, New Mexico


Hail, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title doesn't even match the source - there is no indication that anywhere outside of this article it is called that. But more importantly, there is a single primary WP:SPS, and no indication that there are any other sources of any description, failing WP:GNG. Kora ^^ (she/her) say hi!/what I've done 02:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The First Fat Truckers Album Is for Sale


The First Fat Truckers Album Is for Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. Have also nominated the band in question. KaisaL (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Bendhechhi Beena


Bendhechhi Beena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable studio album. Trivial mention in all the sources that can be found. Here are the keywords of what the sources mention about the album: "debut studio album", "released on January 1, 1998" and "contains 14 tracks". Nothing else, failing significant coverage. Babin Mew (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Would it make sense to merge to the artist's page rather than deleting? M kuhner (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
No I don't think 1 or 2 sentences really matters. Babin Mew (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Before the Fall (song)


Before the Fall (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find a reliable source for the claim about it's appearance on the Billboard Mainstream Rock charts, and the article says that the song received barely any radio play and poor charting. I don't believe this article is notable by Wikipedia's criteria for notability of music. VIV the star (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Accident of Birth (song)


Accident of Birth (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Accident of Birth because it fails WP:NSONG. 1 chart position is not enough for notability. Mika1h (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Mika1h (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the parent album at Accident of Birth. In agreement with the nominator, as reaching a low position on one chart might help a little but otherwise the song has little precise media coverage of its own. The current text is fan trivia copied from a minor interview with Dickinson. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible (EP)


Possible (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this to Youth Brigade (Washington, D.C., band) as I can find no evidence of notability for this EP; but this was reverted, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    KEEP: I went and found several contemporary, positive reviews of the EP in notable punk rock publications and cited them in a new reception section I added. I also saw their connection to notable figures like producer Don Zientara and Ian MacKaye's Dischord Records, which I emphasized to support the EP's notability. Pvdc20 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    All these reviews appear to be in fanzines, not in reliable sources though? Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    This is a good question. Since we’re dealing with an article on an aspect of a subculture that was initially excluded from more institutionally reliable coverage, I don’t think it’s the usual cut and dried decision. While WP:SPS generally excludes any media lacking traditional editorial oversight, strictly applying this rule to the punk subculture (especially something from early in its history) unintentionally creates the systemic bias we're trying to avoid/correct on Wikipedia. Because the mainstream media and academia generally ignored the American punk subculture for years, fanzines serve as the only extant records of notable bands, venues, and commercial releases from the early years of the subculture. Excluding them outright effectively erases this history from the encyclopedia, running counter to Wikipedia's goal of preserving verifiable knowledge, which I know you’re giving your time in good faith to support.
    To factor this in, fanzines like the ones I cited here should be recognized under Wikipedia’s "established expert" exceptions and viewed through the lens of academic institutional authority. As documented in numerous scholarly works, fanzines like
    Maximumrocknroll
    ,
    OP
    , or
    The Big Takeover
    functioned as the definitive trade publications of their communities and their historical reliability is verified by their inclusion in major academic archives like those at Duke, Cornell, UCLA, and the University of Maryland (among many others). Rather than a flat ban, I think editors like us should employ what is basically a tiered approach – allowing historically preserved, scene-defining zines to legitimately verify aspects of the subculture, while still restricting un-archived, purely personal blogs or personal zines. What do you think?
    Pvdc20 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Not sure what happened with my spacing there when I hit reply, but I think you should still get the point. Pvdc20 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    That's not really how it works though. These were a subculture because they had a limited (though fanatic) following, which also restricts their notabilty. Things which were subculture but had a large following (say, things like SF or comics) later all have had sufficient mainstream suorces to be considered notable, while the more minor aspects that only received fanzine attention have no place here. The same applies to something like punk music, there are countless bands and records which have later on received plenty of attention and get unchallenged articles here. This doesn't seem to apply to this EP though. It can be briefly covered in the article on the band of course, but to sustain a stand-alone article this seems insufficient. As for the "academic institutional authority", universities tend to have specialized libraries where they try to collect everything that was published on a topic, without thereby giving it a stamp of reliability. I'm more at home with comics fanzines than with punk fanzines, but while these often have interesting information, they also have many, many errors, mainly due to the amateur, rushed character of the publications, and the lack of scholarly sources to fall back on. Fram (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    The argument that universities 'try to collect everything that was published on a topic' without granting a stamp of reliability indicates a misunderstanding of how these collections (like those which collect fanzines and other punk archival materials) are curated. Academic institutions do not blindly collect every piece of paper ever printed on a topic they specialize in. They intentionally curate collections based on historical significance, cultural impact, and research value. When an academic archive at Duke, Iowa, Cornell, NYU, UCLA, etc. adds a specific fanzine to one of its archival special collections, they are establishing its status as a meaningful historical record of that era, not just grabbing anything they can get a hold of. This confers a level of reliability sufficient for when it's being used the way it is used in this article to cite critical response to the recording within the punk subculture -- a subculture that grew to become highly notable/influential within the world of popular music.
    Additionally, the assertion that "these were a subculture because they had a limited (though fanatic) following, which also restricts their notability" conflates popularity with notability. Per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." While you acknowledge that punk later grew in popularity to the point that it was covered more broadly in mainstream sources, I don't think that renders music from the earlier years -- when it was covered almost entirely by fanzines -- inherently not notable. Indeed, the group was notable enough during its own time that it was covered by multiple zines that have their own Wikipedia articles today, as reflected by all but one of these archival citations. Are we saying these publications are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles but aren't notable enough to cite?
    While it may be your anecdotal experience that fanzines include "many, many errors," there isn't scholarly research that I've ever seen indicating that's the case to a point that fanzines should be deemed unreliable as sources. I agree that your assertion does seem like the accepted wisdom on the matter, but having studied the subject, I have not seen any research to back up the notion that a single editor or a small group of writers/editors are universally incapable of creating a reliable, mistake-free publication, so I think it's worth challenging that assumption. (WP:5P5 and all)
    I don't anticipate this particular exchange resulting in consensus, but let's see if anyone else has thoughts or something to add? Pvdc20 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    I was not stating (or meaning- that "later" punk music was more popular than "early" punk music, but that punk music got more recognition and mainstream sources in later years. 1981 isn't even early punk, the genre was already clearly past its peak by then. Fram (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep I believe that the changes made by Pvdc20 to this page, convince me that this EP should be on Wikipedia. VIV the star (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Lovitt Records discography


Lovitt Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is effectively a repost of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovitt Records ... * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Discogs. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non notable record company and all the sources in this list are self-published sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - If the community decided that the company is non-notable, then so is their discography in list form, especially because of the unreliable sources. Delete as leftover clutter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough notable records. Zalaraz (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Mukhor Porag


Mukhor Porag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable studio album of Shreya Ghoshal, failing WP:NALBUM. There are a few sources where I found its name being mentioned, but no significant coverage is present in them. Babin Mew (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

LL Revisited


LL Revisited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Sources in the article are (1) not about the album, (2) a short mention of one song (the relevant text in its entirety is Wistful and raging at the same time, “Hazel” feels like a long-lost track from The Teenagers’ Reality Check.), (3) a post on the band's social media, and (4) a review published in Ones to Watch, a blog operated by Live Nation with no editorial policy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuno Miles for precedent). Even assuming that (4) is a reliable source, I found nothing else useful in a search; I don't think (2) and (4) pass the bar for significant coverage in reliable sources on their own, so suggest a redirect to The Hellp#Discography. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Strike and Kill


Strike and Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose draftifying because this seems like WP:CRYSTAL to see an unreleased album as meeting our standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep due to incorrect use of WP:CRYSTAL by the nominator. If you read the much more specific notability policy for music albums -- WP:FUTUREALBUM -- a near-future album is real if its release date, tracklist, cover, and other pertinent info have been confirmed by reliable sources, which are already plentiful (if niche-y) in the current article. Nobody made up this album as something that might happen in the future as a crystal ball exercise. While the article's creator may have jumped the gun sooner than certain parties would like, the article is viable and the album is real. And finally, moving a functioning article to draftspace, then moving it back weeks later with just some minor alterations, is pure bureaucracy that achieves nothing but confusion for WP readers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    ok great, so where is the substantial coverage in secondary sources needed to satisfy the notability standards? I see a couple on the page (ignoring those which are not about the album at all), which is not normally enough. JMWt (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST too: , , , . ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep On Ramblin'


Keep On Ramblin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails NALBUM and GNG. Of the sources in the article, Genius and Discogs are both user-generated, and the Medium review is self-published by a non-subject matter expert. The last of these was republished in The Winchester Family Business, which I'm dubious of due to a lack of an editorial policy; in any case, no changes were made, leading me to wonder whether this actually lends any reliability. Aside from that, there's some coverage from Nerds & Beyond (1 and 2), but again I'm unsure of their reliability since I can't find any editorial policy and both articles appear to be by a self-identified college student. Bringing here for help evaluating sources; I would personally be fine with a redirect to Radio Company as an alternative to deletion. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Radio company (duo) is itself a redirected page. So, any more supports for a redirect to Radio company?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Habibi Yah Habibi


Habibi Yah Habibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hebrew song unref since 2015 --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Asher Mizrahi: There's some information about this song at the National Library of Israel, but elsewhere it just seems to appear in some databases, so not enough for independent notability as I see it. Since the composer is a red link right now, its most well-known singer is an OK target. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    • There is no info about it there besides he was singing it, unrefereced, too. and no evidence that he is "most well-known" --Altenmann >talk 20:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Asher Mizrahi. Can be covered at this depth in the parent article. Very early for a standalone. The intro is focused on present referencing and does not articulate a valid reason to delete that complies with NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I alerted WP:Judaism. I have no opinion. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment it puzzles me mightily how can one merge unreferenced aricle into anywhere. --Altenmann >talk 03:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
There's a reference at Hewiki. For us that's an easily accessable source. Per NEXIST what matters are the scources. gidonb (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
There are no enwiki-acceptable WP:RS at hewiki; I did consult before nomination. --Altenmann >talk 16:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. Plus that is only a more accessible source. gidonb (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Honeymoon Fades

AfDs for this article:
Honeymoon Fades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this articles fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG, and WP:SIGCOV because instagram are not reliable sources and the chart does not appear, should be redirect to the album. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment This song is a non-album single, so there is no album to redirect to. It is mentioned in Sabrina Carpenter discography and List of songs recorded by Sabrina Carpenter. मल्ल (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In My Bed (Sabrina Carpenter song)


In My Bed (Sabrina Carpenter song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG, and WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be chart, should be redirect to the album. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect I looked at each source and the ones with any verbose coverage of the song are 2-3 paragraphs basically announcing the single and/or the video, aside from Billboard I'm not sure the sites aren't random blogs. They do not seem to be WP:SIGCOV. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect where?:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to her main page she's a very successful singer with many hits. I don't think that each deserves its own page in general, and this article in particular. ScottyNolan (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect either to her main page or the page of the album. This specific song doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG and WP:SIGCOV. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Singular: Act II: per nom and as standard practice for songs that don't meet WP:NSONG on their own. MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Giải mã


Giải mã (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG and most points outlined in WP:NALBUM, with the exception of some minimal secondary coverage. In addition to being tagged for notability for seven years, the little prose on the page additionally has neutrality concerns The songs in this album were all composed [...] with her true nostalgia and emotions about life. As the artist of the album is notable and has his own page, I propose redirecting this article to Vũ Cát Tường. Johnson524 17:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Step on Me


Step on Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed NSONG. All of the source are not reliable except for uDiscoverMusic, seems reliable but still insufficient sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Legendary Lovers (song)


Legendary Lovers (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Prism (Katy Perry album) because this continues to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers (2nd nomination) closed with a verdict in 2017 to redirect to the parent album Prism. Nothing has come up over the years that would merit a main space entry, and it seems like wishful thinking to believe this track ever could meet notability criteria. A separate page frankly shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. Most citations used that aren't relying on artist commentary (which doesn't qualify as independent coverage needed to warrant an article) just contain a brief passing mention of the track (largely as part of reviews for the Prism album), which isn't enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Only one quality third-party source, namely ChartsInFrance, even gives a cumulative paragraph to the song itself. The rest are questionable-at-best pieces that contain mere speculation/fan wishes, and comments from fan accounts on social media aren't trustworthy per WP:USERG. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. After first denying this at AFC, additional information was added and I passed it. Here is my assessment of the sources. There are many which aren't WP:SIGCOV, but between a few that are and with the charting - both 10+ years ago and now again in 2026 in multiple countries, this meets WP:NSONG.
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Same as prior source, less content ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
No Album inlay is WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
Yes Yes Unable to access article. Used in article to demonstrate credits, so doesn't appear significant. ? Unknown
No Quote from someone who played on the song. Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No Site is largely a media aggregator with little editorial oversight. No No ✘ No
No WP:SELF, WP:PROMO No No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No Yes ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No 15 Yes ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Same as prior source, less content ✘ No
Yes No 20 No ✘ No
No Song not mentioned ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
25 No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
30 No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
terra.com.br/diversao/musica/katy-perry-pede-paz-entre-fandoms-e-cita-fas-de-taylor-swift-beyonce-e-lady-gaga,dbc2870dd93f2c21625a4bf025e880d3utewvxbd.html
 Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No No 35 No Dead link ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG No ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 40 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes 45 No University newspaper ✘ No
Yes No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 50 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Broken link ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 55 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 60 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 61 Yes Indicates charting in several countries ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes 63 Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Not properly archived. Unable to see chart. ? Unknown
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

WidgetKid Converse 04:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Your assessment ignored how the Entertainment Weekly and MTV News pieces are going off artist commentary (and the E! link by extension does as well when rehashing Entertainment Weekly), which means they don't count as independent coverage required for notability. Even if NowToronto generally is credible (which I'm not sure about), it's a speculative piece that only contains minor mentions of the song itself and it doesn't help how much of that goes off social media comments from fan accounts that fails WP:USERG. As for charting links, you appear to believe that entering charts automatically indicates songs qualify for main space entries, which is a common misconception. Here's the reality: when there's only scant coverage (or none) of the song itself from trustworthy third-party sources, charts or lack thereof become entirely moot. The chart URLs listing peaks each only give a brief naming to the song next to numbers anyway. The 2014 link from ChartsInFrance does provide more than just a small name-drop, similar to the 2026 one, but using two or more pieces from the same author/publication isn't enough to meet notability thresholds. We would need other publications that aren't just giving minor mentions or relaying comments from involved parties. Having said all of this, accepting the page at AFC was misguided at best. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that one chart does not an article make, but multiple charts in multiple decades does a lot towards meeting WP:NSONG#S1. WidgetKid Converse 03:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • No sheer number of charts on their own mean a song does or doesn't warrant an article, regardless of time gaps. Let's not downplay how that link specifically says how charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to me it reaches notability especially now that it's charting in several countries. Kirtap92 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • No, charts actually do NOT on their own mean a song is notable enough to merit an article. WP:NSONG only says that those which do so "may be notable", and it's a false equivalence fallacy to assume that bit equals "is inherently notable". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Right, @Kirtap92. Not only several countries, but several countries a decade apart. WidgetKid Converse 03:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the parent album's article; fails WP:NSONG. --Sricsi (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. The guideline was changed in 2025. Album reviews can now be used and combined to support the notability of a song. The 2017 AfD is irrelevant, because it was decided under the old guideline. The fact that the song also satisfies criteria 2 of NALBUM certainly does not hurt its case. James500 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
On the contrary, even when counting album reviews, it still doesn't get enough depth from third-party refs to meet GNG. You also are conflating "may be notable" with "is notable" with regards to charts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
(1) When counting album reviews, the song passes GNG easily and by a wide margin. The coverage is very extensive. (2) An article that is more than 43kB and 1,600 words certainly appears to prima facie satisfy WP:WHYN ("we can actually write a whole article" that is more than half a paragraph, a definition or a few sentences). [If I was to remove any sources or content that I thought might be even arguably or potentially objectionable, there would still be a reasonably detailed article.] (3) I have not conflated anything: I did not deny that criteria 2 is not an automatic pass. James500 (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC) I have just added the words in square brackets, which I wrote before the comment below. James500 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Words striked out in response to WP:ASZ. James500 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Given how no credible sources reviewing the album dedicate more than a cumulative paragraph to the track, it's misleading to say the threshold is passed "easily and by a wide margin", and yes I did assess them for depth. As for a sheer size, per WP:ASZ we shouldn't blindly assume that by itself is an indication of meriting a main space entry. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Beautiful Ballads & Love Songs (Barry Manilow album)


Beautiful Ballads & Love Songs (Barry Manilow album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Barry Manilow discography#Compilation albums because the article fails WP:NALBUM. Short AllMusic review is not enough to establish notability. Mika1h (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

On the Basis of Sex (soundtrack)


On the Basis of Sex (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be merged to On the Basis of Sex Czarking0 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep since this is a new article, I think of keeping it since it now meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC and since it was moved from draftspace. No need for deletion here. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 00:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:RFCMERGEAFD Czarking0 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Film soundtracks often have their own articles of sufficient coverage to stand apart from the film itself‚ with information on releases‚ reviews‚ and discussions of the composer․ In this context‚ sufficient sourcing for an article makes merging into WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC unnecessary․Amishspase (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Redirect to On the Basis of Sex I don't think a stand alone article about the soundtrack is necessary unless it's extremely notable and famous and I would argue that this soundtrack is not. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to On the Basis of Sex#Music. While reviewing the page, I have thoroughly checked the reviews, which are just passing mentions of the music. Not eligible for standalone page. --SatnaamIN (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Victorious discography


Victorious discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Victoria Justice discography because this is an almost 100% WP:CFORK of it. All 10 commercial singles, and one soundtrack and 2 EPs, which aren't that many to begin with, are present on the latter. While the TV show ended 14 years ago, Justice is an active recording artist still releasing music, so it makes more sense to retain her page. Her discography page has existed since 2012. The "Victorious discography" page was randomly split out from it in August 2025 by one user without starting any discussion or seeking consensus, and the original Justice article is absolutely nowhere near big enough to warrant a SIZESPLIT. NØ 05:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Sending a featured list to AfD is a very bold choice, to put it mildly. From WP: NALBUM: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". I think it is plainly the case that the article meets this "reasonably detailed" standard, so the article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
At 196 words and 1,136 characters, this does not skate past stub status per WP:STUBLENGTH (not 10 sentences either). "Unlikely ever to grow"? Well, the show in question ended 14 years ago... Doubt any one-off anniversary reissue in the future will significantly push the article length. Featured content has been deleted in the past and the bronze star does not give immunity to what is a relatively clear CFORK.--NØ 05:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Counting out the individual letters in the lede seems like a pretty tortured reading of policy. This article covers singles, EPs, albums, and other tracks, and contained detailed footnotes where necessary. This is plainly not a stub, and even if it was, there is a sufficient amount of content on the page that merging does not make sense. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
This is a list, not an album. Being featured does not automatically grant something immunity when it shouldn't have existed in the first place. λ NegativeMP1 17:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
My point isn't that featured articles are "immune", rather that an article that has undergone a rigorous review process needs pretty strong reason to be sent to AfD. I'm not really seeing that strong reasoning here, particularly when the lede of WP: CFORK says that content forks are not unconditionally unacceptable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge I am in agreement that this is a CFORK without much reason for it to be a standalone list. A lot of the material seems duplicated, making the article seem to fail WP:OVERLAP. The Victoria Justice discography page is most relevant.
λ NegativeMP1 17:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further opinions for a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Hyperaccelerated. I don't see anything wrong on this discography. I'm trying to understand the rational here but I saw difference from the Victoria Justice discography with more music video. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry but this is just objectively not true. "All I Want Is Everything" (flash mob) is the only video present here that is not on Justice's discography. And since Justice clearly appears in it, it should be present there. I have no idea why you would leave a blatantly inaccurate comment. The rationale here is clearly explained, with points 1-4 on WP:MERGEREASON being met. Clear WP:DUP where the accessdates on common references prove the article creator copy-pasted tables from the original Justice article.--NØ 18:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI