Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

Points of interest related to Albums on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Assessment – To-do

Points of interest related to Songs on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Albums and songs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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

• Music
• Bands and musicians

Setting Yesterday Free (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 can find no evidence that this album meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Propose merge/redirect to Mark Heard as an alternative to deletion Emm90 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mark Heard, as has already been done for his early band that recorded this album, Infinity+3. Via a Google Books search, the album itself often appears in various discographies and trivia lists of Christian rock albums, but I cannot find any dedicated reviews or other analysis with which to be build a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (Bini 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)

The song does not demonstrate any notability and does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NALBUM. There is also no indication that it will pass any of the criteria in the future. I have already raised the concern with another editor and the original page creator, who does not mind the AfD in the article's talk page. Freedom Wall (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of songs by Bini WP:MILL cover of a common Christmas song. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of songs by Bini per WP:ATD-R and WP:MILL. It didn't perform significantly in Bini's discography besides being a cover of the Christmas carol. I did a quick search on the Internet and can only find news coverage about its release, no further discussion from the news sources has been published since then. (The same reason I replied in the article's talk page) AstrooKai (Talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of songs by Bini per all above ROY is WAR Talk! 01:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of songs by Bini per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of songs by Bini. The article ( "Joy to the World (Bini song)" ) does not meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NSONGS. The song is a cover of the traditional Christmas carol and has not achieved significant independent notability. Per WP:ATD-R, redirecting to the list of Bini songs is appropriate. NXcrypto Message 03:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of songs by Bini per everyone else who voted. Unless reasonable dissenting voices say otherwise, I recommend that the deletion request be closed and the article in question be redirected per snowball clause . -Ian Lopez @ 17:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Money Without 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)

Hello. I previously tried to nominate this article for deletion because the sources included were not absolutely verifiable. I failed because I didn't understand Wikipedia's many rules on deletion. Now that I actually understand the process, I'd like to try again. As said before, this article is very weak on verifiable sources. The only sources are hip-hop and music blogs jumping onto the track to generate content for their site. It's clear that the release wasn't intentional, as this was a track leaked years ago that was eventually taken down from his YouTube channel. This happens a lot for artists under UMG. For example, Kanye West has had his YouTube channel hacked multiple times, and each time hackers upload previously leaked songs to make them seem like new releases. The articles themselves are very short and a lot of them peddle rumors around a GNX Deluxe Edition, and the only source for the latter is Lefty Gunplay claiming that a deluxe version exists. He is the only person known to have said this and no one else to my knowledge has confirmed this. It's simply a leaked track that got an article because it was made in a hurry. I yield my time. Thank you for understanding. 35.20.154.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 23:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting what I posted on the article's talk page, as I saw that first.

The existence of Wikipedia:UNRELEASED under Wikipedia:Notability (music) means that there is absolutely a scenario in which an unreleased or leaked track can have a Wikipedia page. Therefore, the points mentioned about the release being unintentional or possibly resulting from a hack are not relevant. I agree that not all leaks should have Wikipedia pages, but that's only because people generally don't write about them, and therefore they aren't inherently notable per guidelines. You don't see many articles about Kanye West leaks, for instance. That brings me to my next point.

The article meets Wikipedia:UNRELEASED. The deletion justification cherry-picks the article's weakest sources; however, there are still reliable sources from Pitchfork, FLOOD, and Hypebeast which are significant, non-trivial, and independent. They discuss both the song substantively unto itself while discussing the nature in which it was mysteriously released. A previous edit summary from this editor even acknowledges this. The editor now says that these sources are short, but there's no guideline that I know of which places any value on this, so I have no reason to acknowledge the point. Ultimately, even if you remove all of the low-quality sources, you would still get an article founded on decently qualifiable sources that meet notability. Therefore, the points mentioned on sourcing are good reasons to remove sources for quality assurance but not to delete the article as a whole; if the editor wants to remove those sources on these grounds, then they are free to do so.

At best, the deletion justification provided thus far is a good list of reasons on why this article isn't "good" in a very subjective sense, and I accept that; however, it isn't a good angle on notability, nor does it refer to any guidelines, making it less of a deletion justification and more so just one person's opinion on the article. I look forward to reading a more technical, policy-based deletion justification from any other editors who feel that the article shouldn't exist. If the article is convincingly proven to have fallen short of a Wikipedia guideline, then it should be deleted. Phibeatrice (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG -- the sources already in the article are evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:UNRELEASED. Locust member (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remains (Steve Lacy 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)

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM - merge to Steve Lacy (saxophonist)? Orange sticker (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Orange sticker (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Steve Lacy (saxophonist). Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. I can't find any reviews besides the Allmusic one, and that one is only three sentences. Jfire (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Also reviewed by Richard Cook and Brian Morton in the Penguin Guide to Jazz (p773): looks like a brief review from snippet view but worth checking by anyone who has a book copy. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This album is in the Selected Discography in the Grove Music Online article about Lacy [1], but without being discussed in the article text. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a review from Penguin and coverage in DownBeat. This, with AllMusic, is sufficient for WP:NALBUM #1. Online searches indicate that there are other reviews published in music magazines at the time it was released, but, as ever, these are difficult to access as they're from the pre-internet era. EddieHugh (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3/3 (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)

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think this EP meets NALBUM. At present, the article is sourced solely via primary sources, and I haven't been able to find any secondary sources discussing the EP, the artist, or the record label. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Language (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)

Bad WP:INCDAB, but renaming it to Sign Language (disambiguation) would leave a dab page with two entries that are barely list-mentioned on the target articles, i.e. they don't really seem to pass MOS:DABMENTION. Should this dab page even exist? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Upon further research, "Sign Language" is also the name of a 2009 studio album by Blueprint (rapper), and a 2016 song by Vistas (band). Additionally, there's this band called "Sign Language" with one of their albums passing WP:MUSICRS but no article yet. Would support renaming DAB to Sign Language (disambiguation) Zinderboff (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/Rename to Sign Language (disambiguation), and expand to include these two songs plus the other stuff found by the previous commenter, plus any other pop culture items that may be relevant. I agree with the nominator's reasoning on why this page does not qualify for WP in its current state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Sign Language (disambiguation), and expand with items mentioned above and "See also" to include "in title" and a link to List of sign languages, and add hatnote at Sign language to point to dab. PamD 10:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to newly-created Sign Language (disambiguation), and amend hatnote at Sign language accordingly. (Per WP:SOFIXIT and while procrastinating RL stuff I really ought to be doing) PamD 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've amended the hatnote.

  The opening line of the dab page is a slight problem: I nicked the first sentence of the target article, to be sure to be correct, but it's pretty verbose. I know there are sensitivities in this area so wouldn't want to upset anyone. PamD 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to newly-created Sign Language (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Plan (Chris Brooks 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)

Self published album by artist I have also just submitted to AfD. Can't find any reviews or mentions of album nor artist. Orange sticker (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Orange sticker (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to the musician if he happens to survive his own concurrent AfD). I can find no reliable pro reviews of the album or other commentary, with only a basic listing at AllMusic and occasional mentions at various prog rock directories. Prog Archives has a review but it has lots of typos and probably no editorial oversight. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NALBUM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources]]. Dan arndt (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sketches (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 appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Draftification and BLAR were contested, hence why I'm here now. Proposing redirect to Birdy (singer), the singer for the album. Currently the only sources are to Apple Music and Discogs and there does not appear to be enough based on a WP:BEFORE search to meet album notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well, this review of the album from the Philippines, [2], helps, but one isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage for an article, a few more critical reviews in RS would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: [3][4][5][6][7] Due to these reviews, this EP is worth to be kept. Also, there's no harm thing to keep this article separate.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 is probably the best. Rest are blogs or review sites. Source 2 is a student magazine from what I read, I'd still like to see better sources before changing my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Second source – Based on the about us section of the first reference, that's a student blog, and would not contribute to notability.
• Third – Wordpress blog of a student, no oversight or clarity of what makes them a subject matter expert of any kind
• Fourth – It's unclear what would make this a valid source to contribute to notability. Their FAQ page provides no information and there's no about us page to view either
• Fifth – The content at WP:RATEYOURMUSIC is user-generated and is considered a generally unreliable deprecated source which should not be used
• Sixth – WP:ALLMUSIC sources do not contribute to notability, and there's not even any reviews at this source to make said argument with

Unfortunately, none of these sources contribute to establishing notability at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per those review above. Anktjha (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Anktjha to make them aware of the breakdown of sources above. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt they read the discussion at all. They were the sock of a banned user, commenting at random AfD discussions willy-nilly in an attempt to mask their contribution to the one they actually cared about. The closer should disregard this comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I figured something similar was the case, but I didn't want to make any accusations :P thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country Demos (Bret Michaels 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)

AFD in 2008 resulted in a WP:SNOW redirect. Article has now been recreated as a refbombed coatrack for Bret Michaels biography. The EP is still non-notable; none of the sources demonstrate significant reliable source coverage. Restore redirect to Bret Michaels discography#Extended plays. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - massive WP:BOMBARD/WP:REFBOMB situation. I'm not seeing what sources are actually supposed to be helping it pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maffian (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 particular extended play (EP) fails WP:NALBUM and is not notable. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. The article's critical reception section is misleading to say the least. The OkayAfrica and P.M. News sources cited in the article are not reviews. I redirected the article to its parent article per criterion 6 of NALBUM, but User:MakeOverNow reverted my edit.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [8][9]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music Charts are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Although Turntable is a reliable chart, simply having an EP chart doesn't justify a separate article. The fact of the matter is that Maffian was not discussed in reliable sources or critically reviewed. I am not sure why you're comparing Maffian with those two other projects. For your info, both Soundman Vol.2 and Boy Spyce were critically reviewed. Show me multiple reliable sources that reviewed the EP and I will change my vote.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

En midsommarnattsdröm (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)

Subject fails GNG and NSONG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable source to pass the guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If it reached the top of the Swedish "Singles Top 100" music chart, it's probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) See https://web.archive.org/web/20120314114527/https://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=H%25E5kan+Hellstr%25F6m&titel=En+midsommarnattsdr%25F6m&cat=s[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like it charted at #1 for about ~1 week in Sweden, and remained in top #100 for a little while after that. I did find a short write-up of this song in particular in the Göteborgs-Posten, and it's also given a passing mention in a few tabloid articles about the musician in general. Does not seem to qualify for multiple, independent sources of sigcov. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per sources above. Anktjha (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A number one charting song. Notable per WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strongly oppose: Article is fairly well sourced and I, for one, am tired of the "PRIMARY SOURCES IS BAD!!1!1!" attitude. I think it's common sense to say that the information contained in the sources themselves should dictate credibility, not whether they're primary or secondary. —theMainLogan (t•c) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A hopeless stance. Who decides whether "the information contained in the sources themselves dictates credibility"? Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looks like Merge or Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not just from nom's reasoning. The song simply fails WP:NSONG and bears no notability. Eelipe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a suitable Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---