Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts

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.


Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Albums and songs

edit

Sharon, Lois & Bram Sampler

edit


Sharon, Lois & Bram Sampler (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 promotional casette consisting of pre-existing songs with no notable coverage in sources. Redirect to the artists Sharon, Lois, and Bram. SenshiSun (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

We'll Have Our Home Again

edit


We'll Have Our Home Again (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)

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Coverage does not have sigcov about the song but about the DHS, and mention this in brief as an example of the DHS's white supremacist messaging, without actually giving any significant coverage of the song. Every source is only covering 1 instance of the DHS using this song from a weeklong period in January of this year; the SPLC source alone gives some additional background, but I'm not sure I'd call it sigcov, and that's still the only thing that could even theoretically be considered SIGCOV, which is not enough for WP:GNG. As is, this is an unexpandable permastub, there's nothing more to say but what is already here. Just "the song is racist" and "racists use the song". I'm sure; that isn't sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

A few more sources have been added by the page creator since the AfD has started; all are still brief mentions from the brief period, including an opinion piece, which does not count for notability (and the opinion piece still only has a passing mention). There is simply nothing to say about the song. It could be merged, I suppose, to some article about the DHS, but there simply is nothing about the song to say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per multiple non-trivial mentions in major national news stories. Below is my take on the current sources. WidgetKid Converse 04:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS about song ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes Far more than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS about song ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS about song in context ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS about song ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS about song ✘ No
Yes Yes ~ Couldn't access article to confirm either way. ~ Maybe
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}}.
Where are you getting these counts? Your first example says the PBS has 100 words, but all it has is in the source is "Then there's this tweet from Friday, an ICE recruitment ad featuring the turn of phrase "We will have our home again" plastered over an image of a man on horseback and a stealth bomber flying in the distance. That's a reference to the song "We'll Have Our Home Again," a white supremacist anthem favored by the Proud Boys." in a transcript. That is not sigcov, or 100 words? The New York Times piece you say is sigcov has one 72 word paragraph. further, blind word counting is not a way to determine sigcov, but whether "original research is needed to extract the content" - the case here. The WSJ piece is an opinion piece, also a passing mention (The only thing the WSJ piece says is If that wasn’t enough, the same account also posted an image accompanied by the text, “We’ll have our home again”—the title of a song popular among white nationalists. When users opened the post on Instagram, audio of the song played.) WP:RSOPINION, WP:NEWSWEEK is not reliable.
The only thing the Atlantic piece says about the song is DHS also recently posted an image of a horse rider with a B-2 bomber overhead, superimposed with the text “We’ll have our home again.” That phrase is nearly identical to lyrics from a song by a group affiliated with the Mannerbund, a far-right folk group that draws upon Germany’s ethno-nationalist Völkisch movement: “Oh by God, we’ll have our home again.” This is not sigcov, or even 100 words, and WP:100WORDS is an essay. This is the most passing mention a passing mention can be. There are not multiple sources that are sigcov here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that blind word counting isn't enough, but there's a clear pattern of the song being covered significantly by many outlets. Even if you nitpick away a couple sources, there is still enough to write an article and to pass WP:GNG. WidgetKid Converse 07:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I wasn't aware of that article - that is a great fit for this content. I've changed my input above. Thanks! WidgetKid Converse 21:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

contribs) 07:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Try and Fail

edit


Try and Fail (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 single fails WP:NSONG; I did a WP:BEFORE and could not find any sources covering this song besides the one used in the article. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 04:50, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Delete: Currently, there is one secondary source for the article, a small review by HotNewHipHop, and all other sources refer to Apple Music and show only basic release details. Currently, there is not enough significant independent coverage to prove that the song is notable according to the notability guidelines. Since the single has been released only on August 18, 2026, more coverage might become available in the future; however, based on current sources, the page should be deleted. Alazar202 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: There's only one source for the article, which doesn't meet any of the criteria above, and while to an extent it's ok to use Apple Music as a source, it can't be used as a second option when there's only one source attached to it. The same applies to the song "Keep Me Going (Birdbrain)". Gdshordy (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Redirect as WP:ATD. Appears to be a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. I could only find the same one source. WidgetKid Converse 04:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Transdermal Celebration

edit


Transdermal Celebration (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 Quebec (album) because the topic fails WP:NSONG. It's not much a song; it didn't chart. Its main claim to fame is that Dean Ween used Carlos Santana's guitar equipment to perform the guitar solo on the song. Thin soup. That fact could be tucked into the album page without much fanfare, in a section talking about the recording process.

The cited sources are mostly talking about the song in the context of the album. A couple are interviews which don't add to notability. There is a distinct lack of WP:GNG requirements: two reliable sources going deep into the topic rather than mentioning it in passing. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Regarding the reasoning for potential redirection, I have this to say:
The song not charting is irrelevant, the notability argument is not for general popularity, rather it requires that the song itself has received significant media coverage. I believe this song has received sufficient coverage, though I possibly have shown that insufficiently so far.
Regarding the story about the guitar, yes that is the most in depth section of the article, though there are other parts to it as well. I will trim down that section, and build up the other parts of it after doing more research.
As for the sources discussing the song in the context of the album, I agree that much of the existing coverage does occur in the context of Quebec. However, I believe the relevant distinction is whether a source merely mentions the song as part of a discussion of the album, or whether it provides substantive discussion of the song itself. The sources currently cited do contain discussion specifically concerning the song, rather than simply mentioning it as one of the album's tracks. With that said, I do see how they could do insufficiently in that regard, and I will put research into this topic in the coming days to find more specific and in-depth sources to use in the article.
I will also revise the article so that its content more accurately reflects the breadth of the available coverage rather than focusing disproportionately on the Santana equipment story. Maxington2007 (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY - no meaningful addition to primary content ~ No ✘ No
~ Still quite WP:PRIMARY Yes Yes ~ Maybe
Yes No WP:BLOG Yes ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG Yes ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No WP:BLOG Yes ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No WP:BLOG Yes ✘ No
~ No WP:FORUM 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}}.
@John B123: I noticed you just marked this as reviewed, so I assume you're for keeping it? Can you share your notability rationale? Thanks! WidgetKid Converse 04:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Articles that are sent to AfD are routinely marked as reviewed as the community will effectively review the article by the outcome. John B123 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks @John B123. WidgetKid Converse 21:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Salaam (song)

edit


Salaam (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 because Mosh Ben-Ari it doesn't have any SIGCOV. I couldn't find any SIGCOV in Google Books in English or Hebrew. In Hebrew, Google Scholar showed no results and in English it didn't show any SIGCOV. There was a probably unreliable outlet in English. Any coverage could easily be merged into the artist's page, scarce coverage seems to make it fail WP:NOPAGE. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2026 (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 keep. SNOW has come early this year. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Surfin' U.S.A.

edit
Surfin' U.S.A. (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)

"Sweet Little Sixteen" and "Surfin' U.S.A." are very much the same song. The Beach Boys used Berry's exact same riff, chord progression, song structure, and refrain orbiting around US geography. All they changed, the way I see it, is the guitar sound, instrumentation, vocal harmonies, and resolution in the chorus. If "Mbube" and "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" form part of the same article—all the Tokens did, really, is sample Linda's improvised harmony at the recording's end (and the theme of a lion, perhaps)—then these two rock classics should, too. I invite anyone interested to listen to the songs—both good songs in their own right, I think—and reflect on how much the Beach Boys' track owed to Berry.

I believe the law is on my side: according to the "Reasons to merge articles", two articles warrant marriage into one if they overlap in scope... and these two songs converge greatly on anything music-related. The article on "Sufin' U.S.A." also needs much reference to Berry's song to give readers ample context. And... I don't think the resulting article would be too long. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep - I feel like calling these songs "very much the same song" is a Giant exaggeration. pretty much anyone could hear the two songs and tell between the two of them. Brian Wilson had a different lick for the intro (think it's from yet ANOTHER Chuck Berry song but whatever), added tons of new vocal harmony arrangements, changed the drum rhythm from the old rock and roll swing to the early 60s kinda shuffle beat, altered the chorus and lyrics, and more things that'd be too long to note down in ways that make his cover pretty distinct and enjoyable and overall pretty distinct from the mid 50s kind of rock and roll swing.
in terms of Info, the song also came out in a different era to become a pretty substantial hit in its own right, and was one of the beginning instances of a trend of 60s rock and roll bands who followed in chuck's footsteps paying tribute to him. including them on the same article would therefore just be confusing and unnecessary.
so yeah, for that reason, even though Yeah you could pretty easily call it a glorified cover of sweet little sixteen, the context it came out in and the song itself are distinct enough to warrant being seen as separate kind of entities, even if they are like cute little sibling songs.
otherwise, youd be getting WAYY carried away arguing that songs like "I Got a Woman" and "Gold Digger" should have their articles glued together (!!!!!!) KayvK (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for making this argument. But I don't think it's proper to call the two songs "cute little siblings" when one remembers how much, and how grossly, black music and artistry was stolen by white mainstream musicians at the time. The Beach Boys very nearly avoided crediting Berry at all. One wouldn't call Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" and Muddy Waters' "You Need Love" cute siblings.... DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2026 (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.

Build God, Then We'll Talk

edit


Build God, Then We'll Talk (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 would have just tried redirecting this, but I have a feeling it would have been met with resistance and/or controversy. Look, I love this song and its parent album, but I have not been able to uncover actual coverage of the song in sources and it has maintenance banners for verifiability, one of them almost two decades old.

None of the article's five total references talk about its content or creation, and three of them are simply present for the purposes of credits. The song didn't chart at all, and a gold record doesn't automatically qualify for an article. If this article had SIGCOV in online sources nearer to its release - which I hope it didn't, because that would be tragic - it would seem like none survive. As time went on, it didn't gain much to help it; I was able to find only one usable source from Rock Sound. mftp dan oops 04:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United States of America, and Nevada. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Redirect to A Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Fuck, I don't want to do this, but the rationale is correct. Panic! was (and still kind-of is) a band I wanted to start writing about when I got through My Chemical Romance shenanigans. I've done source searches for many songs... and I honestly don't know how many Panic at the Disco songs are actually notable. This is one of those songs I've looked into and I just don't think it's notable. The coverage about the song is insanely limited. Yes, the song was certified gold, as were many others. That does not confer notability entirely on its own when there's a major significant coverage drought. NSONG says that charts or certifications could help make a song notable, but not that it actually does; enough coverage to build a detailed, well sources article is still required (see my explanatory essay, WP:NOTNSONG). Even then, commercial performance here would be a tough sell to argue notability for when, as far as I am aware, it had no major chart impact (let alone chart activity at all). The article and Panic! at the Disco discography don't list any chart activity for the song. And there are countless songs that crawled their way to a certification after a decade or more but remain non-notable. And you know things are even more dire when not even MTV at the time bothered to give the song anything at all (this is all MTV had to say about the song, from my searches. Literally only one sentence). So... yeah, I have to agree to redirect here. λ NegativeMP1 05:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the parent album. I also can find no SIGCOV from reliable sources; all I could find from back in the day was routine coverage of the single's release and music video (1, 2, 3), which I am pretty certain do not help in any argument for notability. The song is not notable without any sources to back it up, as much as I, too, like it. smallest red boyhe/she/it (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to A Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Some (albeit VERY minimal) SIGCOV regarding Build God here, but that's really about it. This song is ultimately dry regarding its coverage, and redirecting would probably be the best solution. Gavetheman555 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Wasn't expecting anything from a Google Scholar search, but turned up this WP:THESIS with a pretty extensive writeup and literary analysis of the song's structure and lyrics from pages 114-122. Not too sure about it as a source as I'm not very familiar with the criteria used to analyze this kind of source, but worth considering. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 20:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Outside of that, I've pulled up the old MTV archives and found this article with a few paragraphs about the song and it's music video and this with a few more. It's not particularly deep coverage, but it's something. I think I'd still have a weak lean toward redirect, but would like to hear what others think. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 20:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If only MTV still had its archives easily accessible, it might not be such a pain to actually go digging for enough coverage. Like I said, I think surviving coverage is unavailable. mftp dan oops 12:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think I have to agree to Redirect this one after thinking on it. There might be enough coverage to technically meet WP:GNG, but just because it can have a standalone article doesn't mean it should and what's been presented here would make for a pretty barebones article after cutting out the unsourced material and apparent WP:OR in the current version. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 23:57, 20 August 2026 (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 Sharon, Lois & Bram discography. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Mainly Mother Goose

edit
Mainly Mother Goose (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 Sharon, Lois & Bram discography because the album lacks independent notability; no additional sources were found. Haz215 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with the redirect. Alazar202 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the artists page. SenshiSun (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2026 (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 Sharon, Lois & Bram discography. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Songs in the Key of Kids

edit
Songs in the Key of Kids (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 Sharon, Lois & Bram discography because the album lacks independent notability; no additional sources were found. Haz215 (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I had this tape! Redirect. There's nothing notable about a compilation of children's classics. SenshiSun (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2026 (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.

A Kid's Point of View

edit
AfDs for this article:
A Kid's Point of View (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 Dijon Prioleau because the album lacks sufficient independent notability (and to be honest, he seems to be on the borderline himself). Haz215 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment I note this was AfD'd in 2007, with no consensus forming (though a majority of votes were to delete). Haz215 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. This could have been done as a bold merge based on how little activity this page gets, but since it's being discussed it seems clear that the album passes WP:NALBUM with multiple independent full-length reviews, the addition of which during the 2007 AfD drove the closer's assessment of no consensus (since most "deletes" came before the sources were proposed). Unsure why this nomination was brought without engagement with the reviews already in the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I did engage with the reviews already in the article. Bye bye. Haz215 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • by which to say, I wouldn't consider two reviews from well-written but fairly minor sites to be 'significant coverage', though I'd be open to hearing opposing arguments. If AllMusic isn't considered a consistently reliable source, which it isn't, then I don't think these should be either. So that's a grand total of two reviews from non-top tier sources.
Haz215 (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Both sources appear to have (or to have had at the time of publication) editorial staff and to be independent of the subjects they cover. They may not be Rolling Stone, but NMUSIC doesn't require reviews to be in Rolling Stone. And you didn't address the reviews in your previous comments at all, which is why I pointed it out, or indicate whether you did a BEFORE search. Commenting dismissively toward those who participate in discussions you start (Bye bye) is unproductive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply

An Appointed Time

edit


An Appointed Time (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 Witness (Gospel quartet) because the album is insufficiently notable and I have not beem able to find extra sources to establish notability. Haz215 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:26, 21 August 2026 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Hawk of Lebanon

edit
The Hawk of Lebanon (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 article fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTNEWS. The third reference is an opinion commentary piece (WP:OPINION). Sakiv (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

:Weak Keep Seems to be a notable topic after searching for addtional sources MasterRayvis (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC) Note: MasterRayvis was not extended-confirmed. This comment is ineligible under the ARBPIA restriction. Sakiv (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per multiple sources, especially those identified by @Longhornsg. The nomination mentions WP:SUSTAINED, but that criteria is not relevant for a song. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 06:14, 20 August 2026 (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.

10 Til' Midnight

edit


10 Til' Midnight (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 initially replaced the page with a redirect to Snoop's album discography because the case for it seemed so open-and-shut, but it was quickly reverted for "no consensus". The editor recommended to take this to AFD, so that's what I'm doing. Only sources I was able to find on the current state of the article and Google are PR pieces and news articles, and the few, ahem, reviews I was able to find were one from Revolt that seemed AI-generated, and another from Ratings Game Music, which appears to be a blog where you can submit your own music for review. The one chart position is already mentioned in a note on the discography page, so there is really no purpose for this article being around. User:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Albert in a Can (Better let the poor guy party like it's 1999) 17:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify - This appears to be a proper album release by an extraordinarily notable artist, nearly all of whose other albums have their own stand-alone pages, suggesting this one likely will warrant one as well. It could use some work before being published, though. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The artist being notable doesn't mean the album is. If there is more actual source coverage to prove this album's notability and make the article long enough, the article can easily be recreated. User:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Albert in a Can (Better let the poor guy party like it's 1999) 21:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In addition to inherited notability not being a thing in general (meaning a notable artist's albums are not notable just because they are by a notable artist), the notability of other albums does not establish notability for this album. Albums, like anything else, are deemed notable on their own individual merits only, and nothing else. (No opinion on if this is the case here at all.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Indeed, hence the recommendation to return it to draft status. Notability has not yet been established in this current version. But deletion seems pointless given likely notability going forward, and someone has done us the favor of listing out the tracks and providing info and so on. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So are there sources that support a standalone or should we be considering a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Album and song proposed deletions

edit

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Albums_and_songs&oldid=1370533829"