Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
m Undid revision 1096428189 by Hemantha (talk) rm duplicate
Line 10: Line 10:
==Albums and songs==
==Albums and songs==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Bengali_songs_recorded_by_Runa_Laila}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Lou Harrison}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Lou Harrison}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty Spaces}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty Spaces}}

Revision as of 12:01, 4 July 2022

Deletion Sorting
Project

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


Albums and songs

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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Lou Harrison

List of compositions by Lou Harrison (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 warrant a split from Lou Harrison and could easily be merged into his article; the size of the list is fairly small hence not really in need of a list. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Harrison was astoundingly prolific, and the list is potentially expandable to very considerable length. There is certainly no lack of sources, Von Gunden's Music of Lou Harrison having a bulky appendix. I don't see a clear guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, but why would this case be different from featured articles like Percy_Grainger#Music?Sparafucil (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge. I am fairly unconvinced by the nominator's rationale, which does not cite any guidelines or policy. The rather subjective 'the size of the list is fairly small', fails to convince me when the list in question is 100+ works. Thus, I don't think a list of this many entries belongs in a general biography article for WP, so having a different article seems much more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to type out a distinct policy for my vote, but there are several that are relevant here. Especially WP:NLIST saying that a list topic must be notable in its own right beyond serving as a collection of things; plus WP:NOTCATALOG saying that WP tries to avoid a bare list of items with no surrounding context on why they should be laid out in list form. The moral of this story is that the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts. In conclusion, this gentlemen created a lot of compositions. That's not particularly notable when his existing biographical article already describes his long and successful career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both articles are not very small, hence the WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF was reasonable. Maybe more than size alone, WP:UNDUE was a consideration. Also, let's not start an AfD about every decision someone makes or an argument about every dissenting opinion someone expresses. There is much more gain to be made in the article space! gidonb (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 15 July 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Spaces

Empty Spaces (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-charting song from Pink Floyd's The Wall. The song is described in passing in sources that talk about The Wall. Its back-masking (reversed audio message) is discussed by self-published websites that don't add notability, and also by the BBC in a piece about back-masking in general.[1] Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem The backwards messaging is discussed in the song's entry in
  • Andy Mabbett (2010), Pink Floyd: The Music and the Mystery, Omnibus Press, Wikidata Q25766745
which is neither self published nor "about back-masking in general". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG. The sources in the article, including the ones presented above, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is a little high on geek trivia, but Pink Floyd has such an intellectual following that all of their songs including this one are heavily analyzed in various mass-market books (those already mentioned, plus [2], [3], [4] among many others), and this one received additional attention due to the backmasking. The article can actually be cleaned up and expanded given the available sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 11 July 2022 (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 Red Allen. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Allen, Kid Ory & Jack Teagarden at Newport

Red Allen, Kid Ory & Jack Teagarden at Newport (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)

Appears not to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for albums. Barring the two references; one of which is for the label and the other is an Allmusic review; i found no other references for this release. The helper5667 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 5 July 2022 (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 Coldplay discography#Extended plays. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic (Coldplay EP)

AfDs for this article:
Acoustic (Coldplay 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 would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Acoustic is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I really don't think these all should have been bundled like this. Outside of all being Coldplay releases, they're all pretty unconnected to one another, and a brief skim of them made it look like they all had varying sourcing situations that probably should have separate discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These were all promotional/limited releases to further market their respective album eras and I personally think they don't warrant a separated page. I know I should not be anecdotal, but if you ask the average Coldplay fan (me included), they will say only Prospekt's March (which charted in numerous countries) and Kaleidoscope (which is Grammy-nominated) are notable. Some might mention Safety and The Blue Room due to their historical nature as pre-Parachutes content as well. But the rest can easily be described in the discography page like I mentioned or merged into album and tour pages. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you could very well be right on the point of notability. Maybe they're not notable. It just feels like it should like it should be five different discussions to get there. If people start doing their due diligence and reviewing the sources present, and there's any back and forth, it's going to get messy fast. Alternatively, on the front end, it seems to be scaring away participants as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well then, I'll be removing the other EPs and nominating them separately. This will be the Acoustic nomination. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 July 2022 (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 no consensus. This has run a month, and I do not see any situation where a consensus is going to evolve. Note, socks, duplicate votes have been disregarded, but even among established editors and the later trend-we do not have clear keep consensus here. Suggest discussion continue editorially as to whether a merger would be a solution or a size issue. Star Mississippi 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila (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)

like the dozens of other articles this user has created, this isn't a necessary standalone list and is basically just an itunes directory. Anything relevant can be included in the main article about Runa Laila (as in anything that can be sourced outside of places to buy it.) PRAXIDICAE💕 20:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say about those articles? List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar, List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar, List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade. They are also similar type of directory and should be deleted for the same reason. I hope everyone will consider my points. Abbasulu (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbasulu: Please see WP:WHATABOUT. "What about (something)?" is an argument strongly discouraged in deletion discussions. The linked page says:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.

I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by Superastig as "redirect to Runa Laila#Discography as an WP:ATD. Discarding the "keep" votes which state WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyone is free to merge anything important to the target article." This was overturned as a WP:BADNAC at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, there are strong policy-based arguments that this list does not belong in Wikipedia, which does not aim to be a list of everything, but to be a high-quality encyclopedia. Being an encyclopedia means not just listing songs in a discography, but providing prose analysis of them, summarizing what reliable sources say about their recording, reception, significance, and influence.
This list also fails the most common notability guideline for lists, because no independent reliable source has discussed the Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila as a group. And it fails the three purposes of lists. Without analysis, the list does not convey encyclopedic information. Out of the roughly 700 songs, none has a Wikipedia article, and there's no evidence that any of them are notable, so the list does not allow the reader to navigate among them. If it is intended as a development list, it should be in user space, not article space.
Merge is inappropriate because only about 4% of the songs cite any source, the sources don't always support all of the content where cited, and the sources aren't always reliable (IMDb, Amazon). Redirect is an alternative to deletion that recognizes that the content does not belong on Wikipedia. Redirect is not inappropriate, but not particularly helpful in this case, as any reader looking for a list of songs recorded by Runa Laila will find Runa Laila with or without a redirect. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a redirect, I agree that WP:RKEEP 3 (aids search) does not really apply. Searching for the exact list title returns unrelated "List of songs recorded by" articles, but the shortened and more likely Bengali songs Runa Laila returns Runa Laila as its first result, followed by an Urdu song list and this list. Intersecting List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila#Album songs and Runa Laila#Discography, the only overlap is the album Ganga Amar Ma Padma Amar Ma. Its track list is not included in her article – to be clear, I oppose merging it as it would overwhelm the section – and it doesn't have an article, so a reader looking for Bengali songs would not find them. This approaches common WP:Redirects for discussion rationale "not mentioned at/in target" and WP:RDELETE 2 (confusing). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of replying, Please clearly cast your opinion, whether you support for deletion or keeping. It will count as a vote. Thank you. Abbasulu (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy based argument, made in an old AfD of a similar article (recently quoted at another AfD), appears to be WP:WORKS. Hemantha (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - The other two articles on Runa Laila has successfully survived deletion. This discussion is meaningless. Most of the directory articles have easily survived deletion. Abbasulu (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice now you've voted. Avilich (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbasulu You're not allowed to vote twice. SBKSPP (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Discography of a notable singer is a valid WP:CFORK. Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and India. Hemantha (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments that have been extensively developed in related AFDs (and which I thought, apparently incorrectly, that I had already posted here), and in particular per the following:
    • Absent strong considerations to the contrary, WP:EDIT and particularly WP:PRESERVE prevail, and issues over the scope and content of these lists should be addressed through collaborative editing (the "wiki process"), for which AFD is neither necessary nor helpful. And there are no policy-based reasons for deletion or removal here, let alone any strong ones, as detailed below.
    • I'm not sure CFORK is quite on point here, but it doesn't matter, because this seems like a perfectly cromulent WP:SIZESPLIT.
    • NOTADIRECTORY first observes that Wikipedia does often provide useful directory-like functions, but qualifies this with six examples of directories that Wikipedia is not. Only two of these exclusions could conceivably apply here, but neither actually does: (1) This is not a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", because the value of this list precisely comes from the "contextual information" with which this list is richly endowed. (2) This is also not a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization": language is a logical categorization that arises directly from the subject matter. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would be something like "Songs performed by X in movies that also featured views of the Taj Mahal."
    • INDISCRIMINATE states that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and provides some specific examples of indiscriminate content (none of which apply -- a list of songs is not a "lyrics database"). Even if a "should" could create a basis for deletion, it does not do so here, because this list does put its data into context. Although we might quibble over the current state of sourcing of this list, that is a matter for improvement, not deletion.
    • WP:NLIST: (a) does not provide an independent basis for deletion, since it merely enumerates one example of a type of list that is generally considered non-deletable, and (b) is highly unlikely to apply when the topic of the list is the very same body of work for which the singer is notable in the first place, as is the case here.
    • WHATABOUT / OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a subsection of an essay about how some Wikipedians dislike some arguments. In fact, the longstanding presence of numerous lists of this kind is a far better guide to global Wikipedia consensus, as established through collaborative editing, than any local consensus could ever be in the unrepresentative environment of AFD. (For a different take than mine, but one that still takes the wind out of the sails of this popular shout-down, see the essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments.) I could write up an essay about how WHATABOUT is a silly argument and go around citing that as if it were policy, but that would be just as ridiculous as citing WHATABOUT in this way.
    • Finally, per the great-grandmother of all policies, this content is useful and encyclopedic and Wikipedia would be diminished by its absence. Therefore, any guidelines, policies or essays that appear to militate against its inclusion are either being misconstrued or are so inapposite that they can reasonably be ignored in this and similar cases. Likewise, any claims that arguments not grounded in (other) Wikipedia policies should be ignored as not being "policy based" should be disregarded, because (a) they ignore the reason for having policies to begin with and (b) such gatekeeping is fundamentally contrary to the idea of an open wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists like this of notable singers in South Asian Indian film industries where songs are important to the films are perfectly fine, but they've got to be better sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Runa Laila is notable and her work is notable. This informative list belongs in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Visviva's overview is an excellent rationale. Shahid • Talk2me 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Discography not discussed in WP:Reliable sources ("If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"). Does not contain "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" (IINFO, NOTDIRECTORY, etc.), and is only as good as the spotify and apple music directories which it solely cites as sources. Avilich (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Visviva, the many "policy-based arguments" for deletion are, at the very least, misconstrued and wrongly applied to this article and do not stand under scrutiny. The suggestion that a listing of songs of a singer (that is, their body of work) is not notable is silly when the singer's claim to notability is coverage of that very body of work. The grouping by language is most likely a WP:SIZESPLIT because a single page would be too long to navigate comfortably. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Visviva; + would especially like to emphasise this part of WHATABOUT which is all too frequently ignored: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above, this seems like a perfectly valid supplemental page. Artw (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (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 Fundamental (Mental As Anything album). Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wheel (Mental As Anything song)

Big Wheel (Mental As Anything 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)

Big Wheel

Song that does not come anywhere close to general notability, and does not satisfy musical notability. Song notability requires independent coverage other than artist and label. A draft was declined twice, at which point this article was created and is essentially same as draft. Review of the references shows that they are catalog entries and show that the song charted 75 on the Australian national chart.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 45cat.com A catalog entry Yes No Yes No
2 australian-charts.com Another catalog entry - Shows that songs by the band have charted Yes No Yes No
3 charts.org.nz Another catalog entry Yes No Yes No
4 australianmusicdatabase.com Another catalog entry - Shows that the song was at 75 on the chart Yes No Yes No
5 germancharts.de Shows that the song was 75 on Australian charts Yes No Yes No
6 Kent Music Report Wikipedia, and so a circular reference No No

There is no coverage other than the mention of the chart position, and no coverage is not significant coverage. Recommend Redirection to Fundamental (Mental As Anything album) as alternative to deletion for both article and draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability or commercial significance. Easily fails WP:NSONGS. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:10, 30 June 2022 (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 merge to Helmut Schlegel. czar 07:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christus, Menschensohn

Jesus Christus, Menschensohn (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 evidence of notability: while this short text has been included in some religious song books, it doesn't seem to have received any actual attention from reliable, independent sources. Sources in article are databases, or lists of contents: only source with some further text is the "Werkhilfe zum Singheft", which is more of an educational/technical guide on how to perform it.

Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews[5] or GBooks[6] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits[7] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Religion, Christianity, and Germany. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is well-enough sourced, and is of education value. --evrik (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'd defer to Gerda on this since she's the one who speaks German and has access to the sources. But I'd presume that there might be more coverage of the song in offline sources? I imagine the topic has wider coverage offline than online. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's review the sources in the article (current as of Special:Permalink/1095357779):
    • 1 is a "hymn portrait", published in the Diocese of Limburg's semi-annual church music journal. Authors are a priest and the diocese of Limburg's head of church music, who also edits the journal.
    • 2 is a database of hymns that mentions which hymnals contain the song
    • 3 is a list of songs in the Limburg version of the Gotteslob (might be better to cite the Limburg Gotteslob directly)
    • 4 is a primary source sales listing for 5
    • 5 is the table of contents of a songbook that contains the hymn
    • 6 is an excerpt from a songbook containing the hymn
    • 7 is a booklet accompanying this collection of choral settings (published annually). Author is "Bundessingwart und Kantor im Christlichen Sängerbund", an evangelical choir organisation.
    Of these sources, only 1 and 7 are worth considering, the rest is trivial database entries or sales material. Source 1 is from the time the new Gotteslob was introduced and contains several portraits of the new songs that were included for the Diocese of Limburg's version of the hymnal (the first part of the hymnal is identical for all German-speaking Catholic dioceses, but most dioceses have their own songs in the other part). I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were involved in the decision to include this song in the Limburg hymnal, but I haven't researched this further. Anyway, this is a good source. Source 7 is not Catholic and shows reception of the song outside the diocese and denomination of its origin. It is fairly short but a reasonable description of the song, written for people who want to use it in church service or for choirs.
    Without source 1, this would be a clear "redirect to author" for lack of independent secondary sourcing. As it stands, we don't really have "multiple" independent sources doing an in-depth treatment. While the songs of the main (common) part of the Gotteslob have all been subject to in-depth critical commentary (see [8] for a list of some literature) there does not seem to be much about the Limburg hymns so far. Probably merging to the author is still the best solution until there is another in-depth discussion of the song. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review. To clarify: Gotteslob is one book, with a regional section for numbers 700 and up, the regional section a collection of hymns traditionally sung in the region and new songs fro the region, like this one.
    I think the guidelines for songs are mostly made for recorded songs with a broad publication. It seems a bit unfair to expect the same kind of reception for a regional hymn. What I see:
    • This is a song that is actually sung. There are many in Gotteslob which get practically never sung, but this one fits many occasions (as could be expanded based on ref 1 which I found only yesterday).
    • This is a hymn that has not yet made it to other regions of Gotteslob but to several other collections.
    • This is a text that inspired two composers.
    • This is a text written by a prolific and thoughtful author, and worth knowing about - I think - even if no second in-depth discussion pops up. We have IAR, no? Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not particularly good arguments. "People sing this", well, we need them to write about this. "This is only a regional hymn, so we should expect sources to be bad" sound more like a reason not to write individual articles about regional hymns, not to accept lower quality sourcing... and I do not think invoking IAR works particularly well to have four songs by this author as individual articles. Remember, we are not here to promote them, no matter whether they deserve that or not (and many texts are "worth knowing about" and we exclude them to prevent people from promoting their causes). Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen in the main part of the Gotteslob is probably easiest to source; there seems to be far more written about it, even if the article doesn't reflect that. (I find the sources for Glauben können wie du slightly worse than the ones presented here, and am surprised it got so many "keep" comments). All of these articles btw suffer badly from broken links. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the possibility of a merger and to welcome other viewpoints to this discussion and examination of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge without prejudice against recreation if more sources emerge - With deepest regrets, I think I have to side with Kusma's arguments here. It appears that there's really only one source that gives the hymn any decent coverage, with the rest being passing mentions at best. It's not because of the material because other hymns from the same collection appear to have had more coverage. This is not a !vote I take lightly: in fact, I was originally leaning a weak keep when I first saw that the article had been nominated, until I made my own search and found very little of use. I appreciate that the hymn helped inspire other musicians, but that isn't a claim to notability in and of itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason why new sources should cover this song. It began regional and was successful beyond that region, that makes it notable for me even if not formally for Wikipedia. It will likely appear in the common section of Gotteslob in the next edition in a few decades. I could name a few in the same category (regional but beloved) but fear that I'd just provoke new deletion discussions. So just one example: Das Weizenkorn muss sterben. Big difference: the author is dead. I wish Brother Helmut a long life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 12 July 2022 (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 no consensus. There's no consensus to delete or redirect the article, but not enough consensus to keep it either. Nonetheless, editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batwanes Beek

Batwanes Beek (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)

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The song is briefly mentioned at the performers article. This article was simultaneously created as a pair with and linked from an article on the composer Salah El Sharnouby which also appears to be an AFD candidate and IMO was most likely created to support / be linked from the Salah El Sharnouby article. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 July 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Love Comes Around the Bend

When Love Comes Around the Bend (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 song. Extensive WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com (specific focus on The Tennesseean), AllMusic, World Radio History, and Billboard found no sources about the song. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NSONG #3, as it was also recorded by Dan Seals on album Walking the Wire (album) (The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee)01 Aug 1992, Page 29)(Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois)27 Aug 1992, Page 78), and many others. In fact it may be Seals' version which is more reviewed. Also recorded by Sweethearts of the Rodeo Beautiful Lies (Sweethearts of the Rodeo album) (Argus-Leader (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)03 Oct 1996, Page 45). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:35, 4 July 2022 (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 Faith in You without prejudice against recreation, albeit under a different artist. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in You (song)

Faith in You (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)

Song only barely charted. I found no reviews of the song in a WP:BEFORE involving Newspapers.com, World Radio History, Billboard, and Rolling Stone. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist to consider on whether a different song of the same title is more notable than the other. Editors are encouraged to indicate sources about it. If neither of them are notable enough, then consider disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 12 July 2022 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals – Keith Urban

ITunes Originals – Keith Urban (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)

Album was not reviewed by any major third-party sources such as Roughstock, Billboard, Country Standard Time, etc. I could find no other coverage beyond the most superficial of mentions and one AllMusic review, which itself is insufficient without any other coverage. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iTunes Originals or Keith Urban discography, while I was able to find another source on top of the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter (which is a reprint of an article from Billboard), I don’t think two sources and charting for a bit provide notability MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between Keep, Delete and Redirect, still not seeing a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 3 July 2022 (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 In a Dream (EP). ✗plicit 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rager Teenager!

Rager Teenager! (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)

Had a quick search of news sources and although there is some limited coverage of the song's existence, it doesn't pass WP:NSONGS. Seems like the release largely slipped under the Radar. Viable search term but not a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel there may be enough to keep the article based off of sources. (Table based off of this revision).TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete still. Not enough information or established notability to warrant standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref name Url Subject? Non-trivial? Independent? Can be used as a NSONGS/GNG source?
Rolling Stone 1  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes
The Line of Best Fit 2 ? Maybe  Yes  Yes ? Maybe/ Yes
Billboard single release 3  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes
Midiorama 4  Yes ? Maybe ? Maybe ? Maybe
Billboard album review 5  No  Yes  Yes  No
Youtube link to music video 6  Yes  No  No  No
Pressparty 7  Yes ? Maybe  No  No

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 29 June 2022 (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 Halsey discography. TigerShark (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collabs

Collabs (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)

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. The EP is a compilation of mostly existing tracks. All of the information is about individual songs or taken from other projects like Manic. There is very little on information pertaining to this project itself. Notability is not inherited, the collection did not chart. There's little information beyond the track listing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 June 2022 (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 Halsey discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands (Live from Webster Hall)

Badlands (Live from Webster Hall) (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)

A search of Google and News finds little coverage that actually demonstrates anything other than the existence of this album. Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the fact that it's Halsey's first live album noteworthy enough, not to mention it includes a reissue of her first studio album? I wouldn't vote for this article's deletion because it definitely helps learning about every album in an artist's discography, but if the article were to be deleted, could it be then added to the article for the 'Badland' studio album, since this is basically a reissue of the album with a live set of the tracks included, maybe as a separate section in the article or as part of the track listing section of the 'Badlands' article? Bryan McLaude (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean its notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not inherited. Not every album released by an artist gets an article just because the artist has released albums before. Pages on wikipedia do not exist to create notability for a particular project, we cover notable topics. Per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists.". By default, we shouldn't include the track listing at the Badlands page unless the live album was of significance. E.g. if it led to an uplift in sales or was the subject of critical commentary. Otherwise it just appears in the artist discography as a release without any details. If people want to see the track listing they can check out retailers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I mean it exists, you can find coverage all over the place. Mostly just mentions of the album release or track listings. Nothing substantial upon which to base an article. I didn't see any reviews in my search either. I get "reviews" in Billboard with "Stream it now!" popping up, it's little more than a repost of social media postings. No traction for the album. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2022 (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.

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Albums_and_songs&oldid=1096428431"