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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:46, 24 June 2010

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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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 redirect to Ron Artest. T. Canens (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My World (Ron Artest album)

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

NN album, only trival G News coverage CTJF83 pride 02:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This album sold less than 500 copies, independent sources don't appear to exist, and it's already sufficiently covered in the Ron Artest article, so there's no need to merge anything. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect i mean its noteworthy considering he's the only NBA player besides Shaq to release a rap album and i didn't even know he was a rapper untill i saw this AfD but this is not noteable. STAT -Verse 03:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there is no sourced content that couldnt be adequately covered in the RA article. Active Banana (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealin' (Bob Dylan bootleg)

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and the only sources provided are from the same non-credible site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a lot of coverage, but all from the one source. No indication that this is notable even within the somewhat narrow field of Dylan bootlegs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As a further thought, a merge/redirect to Bob Dylan bootleg recordings might be appropriate though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: fascinating stuff for the aficionados, I'm sure, but those people will end up at bobsboots.com without too much trouble, if they only google a little longer. If this page adds anything you can't get at that site, it's WP:NPOV violations. Yakushima (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:28, 5 July 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Pops 2002 Volume 2

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per nominator comments. Articles are simply not required for such trivial compilations. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter Compilation

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 75 copies? No independent coverage, as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play (drum and bass album)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Nageh (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Control (Time-Life album)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Justin. Nageh (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use These Spoons

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

NN, fails WP:NALBUMS, no G News results CTJF83 pride 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails all criteria of WP:NALBUM. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more significant coverage is presented. All I'm seeing is this review, which on its own is not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:01, 25 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstellation

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

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Album. CTJF83 pride 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2010 (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 Dope (band). Does not meet WP:NSONG. Contents to be merged with nearest appropriate article, and the title turned into a redirect. The nearest article is No Regrets (Dope album), though that article has questionable notability, and, per WP:NALBUMS, should be redirected to Dope (band) SilkTork *^YES! 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Addendum: No Regrets (Dope album) was previously deleted after an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Regrets (Dope album). SilkTork *^YES! 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction (Dope song)

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

non notable single per WP:NSONG, redirect was reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album, per WP:NSONG "and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album". If the redirect is undone, point the user to this AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable'. Robo37 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what national chart was it ranked on? What significant awards or honours has it won? Who are the notable artists who have released this single? The Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks just compiles the songs that are played on niche rock stations and is not based on sales like other charts. Mo ainm~Talk 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is still a significant music chart, and Zakk Wylde is definitely a notable artist. Robo37 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so lets assume that Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is significant (which I have my doubts) it hasn't won any significant awards or honours and it hasn't been covered by any notable bands artists or groups. Also there isn't "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and as such the article is "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" Mo ainm~Talk 19:41, 29 June 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 5

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of reliable sources. This compilation fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have not founded a suitable target to merge this content to, so deletion is the most suitable course of action. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series) per Dramatic. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 7

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of reliable sources. This compilation fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have not founded a suitable target to merge this content to, so deletion is the most suitable course of action. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series) per Dramatic. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. And why weren't these handled as a group nomination? dramatic (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 10

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per the lack of reliable sources. This compilation fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have not founded a suitable target to merge this content to, so deletion is the most suitable course of action. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series) per Dramatic. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper's Train

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

Demos area assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Again - are you sure this is a "demo" under the meaning of that term in WP:NALBUMS? The article text says it was released as a cassette-only album. This AfD may not be legitimate if your rationale for deletion is because it's a demo when it might not be. Perhaps a different rationale within WP:NALBUMS could support deletion if you would slow down a bit. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Turn

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Again - are you sure this is a "demo" under the meaning of that term in WP:NALBUMS? The article text says it was released as a cassette-only album. This AfD may not be legitimate if your rationale for deletion is because it's a demo when it might not be. Perhaps a different rationale within WP:NALBUMS could support deletion if you would slow down a bit. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (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. Seems a pretty clear fail of WP:NSONG, but people have written about it, and it did get several Keep comments Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

On appeal, I am changing this close to merge and redirect.

Missing You (The Saturdays song)

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

per WP:NSONGS this is nowhere near notable. No confirmed cover, a release date that is miles away, not enough information for a suitabley-sized article and so should be redirect to The Saturdays. It is a massive WP:CRYSTAL Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Saturdays so that it can easily be brought back when/if it becomes notable (which, judging by the article, isn't going to happen until mid-August at the earliest). It's not possible to redirect this to an album, has it doesn't appear on one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. No strong reason for stand-alone article at this point. Location (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more and more information getting added to the page. It is not possible to add information to a redirect page. L.Geee —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep lots of info on there and it will only be re-opened in like 1-2weeks--The Saturdays Love (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— The Saturdays Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment both yourself and LittleGee added deliberate factual errors including massively unsourced and unpublished information about the song being the lead single from a new album called Higher, the music video, the CD single track listing and the song production credits which i have removed. Per WP:NSONGS a song must have warrantable and reliable detailed information which is sourced and to pass notability it should have charted or recieved independent coverage which this has not. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere is now a cover and a sneak preview of the video has been released. The single is out in a little over a month. The music video is being released to national tv anytime soon after Saturday. Interest is soon to be given to this single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.240.18 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-— 90.218.240.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect This is the correct solution, but I bet by the time this debate is over that the song will be out and charting. Adam 94 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:SONG as on now. Once it's released i would support restoration. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there is still ongoing discussions with the record company whether this will actually be the first single, and even if it is released it wont be for another 2 months. Mister sparky (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ^ Complete lie. Music video has been filmed for Missing You. Single artwork and b-side have been produced. Missing You is definitely the first single. 90.215.249.25

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what anyone wants to do with this, but the video is up already. Adam 94 (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pre-order information, traclist revealed, music video released, single cover, it is definately happening. So I definately think it should be kept now. It's also gathered a following on many music sites if that helps --92.24.244.207 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-— 92.24.244.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect - Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music) , userfy for someone and wait until it is released or about to be released, single is not so notable to warrant a separate article two months before possible release. Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed in the article appear significant enough to support a stand alone article. --Pink Bull 16:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A stand alone not notable unreleased fanzine fluff piece hosted on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the "fanzine" assessment because it's been covered by the Daily Mail and Digital Spy.--Pink Bull 16:50, 27 June 2010 (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 Kat DeLuna. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Push Push (song)

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Has had reference issues since February 2010, and has virtually no sourced information. it should be merged to Kat DeLuna. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold and merge it. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kat DeLuna - Song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2010 (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 It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Falling Apart

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

I like the song, but fails WP:NSONGS, no significant coverage, nothing on G News and only trivial G results CTJF83 pride 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge three years and nothing. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Iliad of Woes

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Faith Is Lost 86.180.248.183 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Faith Is Lost

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from your assumption, not only the album hasn't made any charts, but the singles themselves aren't notable either. Minima c (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Electro Tribute to Depeche Mode

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

Non-notable tribute album that has not received any third-party coverage or reviews. The article has not had any substantive changes since the day it was created in January 2009 (everything since then is admin-related updates). The tribute album is not mentioned at the official Depeche Mode website, and I spot-checked three of the bands included on the disc and they do not mention it at their official websites. This is a quickie album that gained no notice upon release and was quickly forgotten, so therefore it's unworthy of a WP article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems possible that some music magazines may have covered it, but unless someone can produce those references and expand the article with some information from them, I agree it appears to be NN. Could possibly be reorganized and added into List of cover versions of Depeche Mode songs, but that list has its own issues already. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album fails WP:NALBUMS. There are no reliable sources showing how this tribute album is notable. Aspects (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armour of love

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

Not out until 2011, so little information about it at the moment. Currently just a list of production team. Could support its creation nearer to release when there's sufficient sources about it to base some information about. Jolly Ω Janner 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thanks.musiceditor123</ —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source for the information, very WP:CRYSTAL/promotional. Article can be recreated when reliable sources appear and WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS are met. Hekerui (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this could have probably been a simple PROD due to the very obvious issues with WP:CRYSTAL. In any case, those interested in the album can wait until it becomes a reality because Wikipedia is not going anywhere. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 23 June 2010 (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 Sainthood (album). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alligator (song)

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

There is no indication why this song is notable and deserves its own article, nor are there any apparent ongoing contributions to the article. The majority of this "song" article is a track listing of the remixes on the Alligator LP. I think mentioning the single and LP on their discography page is sufficient. Klubbit (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sainthood (album) - Song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, there are other bands with songs titled "Alligator". A quick Google search suggests that Grateful Dead, Trophy Scars, Grizzly Bear (band), and Foxboro Hot Tubs each have one. We could redirect to Alligator (disambiguation) and add the Tegan and Sara song to the music section. Klubbit (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 9

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

Non-notable compilation album. I see nothing special on Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are no detailed sources discussing this albumn is should be deleted and redirected to the group. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 7 July 2010 (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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At That Point

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

It is no longer notable. It heavily relies on Rap-Up as the main source and has no confirmed release date. Though it has singles only 1 charted. Additionally all of the singles were merged into the album as they also lacked notability. It is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL as it still has no confirmed track listing or cover art. It should be deleted and relevant information can be salvaged and placed at Teairra Marí. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teairra Marí as suggested by the nominator. Rap-Up is the only source I can find saying that the album will be released at all (in August, according to them), but a Google News search reveals some unreliable blogs saying that the album has been shelved indefinitely. Either way, since there is info available about this currently nonexistent album, it can be added to the artist's article. This exact same thing has happened before: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltron Event II (2nd nomination). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just beacuase of the reasons given. Unreliable blogs are just that, Rap-Up however (which is a magazine too), is notable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (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 Eyes Open#Track listing. –MuZemike 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could be happy

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

No indication why this song is particularly important. While claims are made that it is "widely used in media", there isn't a single source provided in the article. Google searches show the song (how couldn't it?) but where is the proof of notability, significance, or importance? I don't see any, so that's the AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No, you can't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Eyes Open ("weak" because of the improperly formatted title). That article mentions a few factoids about the song. Location (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eyes Open. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eyes Open. The song is mentioned within album and concert reviews (e.g., [1][2][3][4][5]), but the coverage for the song itself ranges from passing mentions to 1-2 sentences; nothing particularly significant enough to convince me it satisfies WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a redirect is necessary because if someone searches for the song title (in the future) they will probably end up at the album article anyway. Also, this article is mostly unsupported and unencyclopedic interpretation by a fan. If the song was really used in documentaries and an episode of Smallville, this can be mentioned at the album article or band article IF verified by reliable sources. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Location above noted the improperly formatted title. I fixed this with a Move just in case the article survives or gets redirected. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (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 Incubate. Would be a delete on the merits, but since it seems likely sufficient information will be available soon, I'm going to incubate it at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kelly Rowland Shimeru 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kelly Rowland album

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

Album that is going to be released in 3 months, no title and tracks listing confirmed yet×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Keep. THe Album has been titled, has a set realeased date, and three confirmed singles[reply]

Why delete it?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS: no title and an incomplete track list. This should be covered at the artist's article at least until those two are verified. Cliff smith ^talk 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, *UNTRUE. The album is to be called "Kelly Rowland". It has a release date of September 14th 2010. It has 3 singles confirmed, 2 U.S.A singles "Grown Woman" & "Rose Colored Glasses". It has the Europe, Aisa, Austraila 1st single Guetta produced track "Commander" which has already hit top 10 in the U.K & Ireland. It is doing very well across Europe and she has promoted it everywhere. There are offical covers, Official Dates, Offical tracks confirmed & Official Title.

THE PAGE STAYS IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.8.93 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about the single Commander, it doesn't matter if it charted in several places, but the album hasn't a tracks listing yet, so it fails WP:NALBUMS..and it's too early, I think it shouldnt be added before the 1 September. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete motivations above ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator comments, there is not enough information to warrant a detailed enough page. There are not enough credible sources etc. It doesn't have a cover, track listing or confirmed release date - just media vaguely reporting September 2010. By the way i striked Merynancy's vote because by nominating the article you automatically vote for its deletion. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too early for this... most of the article is information simply about when the singles were released and not much about the actual album. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC

Keep, No it hasn't got an official tracklisting yet, That might not even be posted until a week or 2 before the release but she did just throw a litening party a few nights ago, Which means the album is complete and promo is starting. The source is below about the party where they played 6 songs that is confimred to make the album "Grown Woman", "Rose Colored Glasses", "Shake Them Haters Off", "On & On (The Sound)", "Forever and a Day" & Heaven On Earth". If you check Rap-Up T.V (url below) there is a interview with Kelly herself about the production of the album, Which producers she has worked with, The sound of the album ect.... If you check her official website you will find there is a release date of the album and also the 3 singles. Another link below is of an interview just last week where Kelly talked more album the album including the title, producers, dates ect... What more sources do you need than from KELLY herself. The only thing missing is the tracklisting & the cover. She has been doing promo for the single "Commander" and the album all over the U.K and alot of radio stations in the U.S. She has been interviewd on Perez Hilton about the upcoming album, She is also just been confirmed to perform at this years B.E.T Awards. This era has already began and people are intrested and want information!! Thats what wikipedia is for right, To inform people? If this was Britney, Rihanna, Gaga or Beyonce the page would be up for months. The relase date is less than 12 weeks away.

Note that i have striked the unreliable sources. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The anonymous users can vote????You should discuss about this, it would be better if only users registred at least one month ago and with at least 50 edits should vote..too easy to hide behind an Ip address..] And answering to 92.4...... in my opinion and in other people's opinions, these informations aren't enough, and for the registred and concrete users who voted this page should be deleted, and 12 weeks are TOO MANY!!!!!×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: Look, Wikipedia's guideline about music notability (WP:NALBUMS) says: "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Now, since this deletion discussion began, the title has apparently been confirmed. But the track listing is still incomplete. There is already information about this album at the artist's article, which is where it should remain until the track listing is complete. As far as "Britney, Rihanna, Gaga, or Beyonce" are concerned, WP:NALBUMS also says "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it," "However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." There's about two paragraphs at this article presently. It can't really stand on its own just yet. Someone could WP:INCUBATE this, though, if so desired. Cliff smith ^talk 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment dont worry the number of votes cast doesn't affect the outcome. its the quality of the opinions give. so far IMO there is no substantial support or suitable argument for keeping the album. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2010 (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 Legend of the Black Shawarma. T. Canens (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing the Opponent

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for singles. Neelix (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable band, very notable guest vocalist, notable remixers. Not sure what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited. As stated in the applicable guidelines, "most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article." This single has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as Wikipedia:Notability requires. Like most singles by notable bands, this one is not sufficiently notable for an independent article. Neelix (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. I could barely find two sources for this song, outside of lyric links and music vidoes, and those two sources were little known blogs and local newspapers that mention the song in passing, which is not sufficient for notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma. Not enough info available for stand-alone article and redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma - Song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Shot

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find in reliable sources is a passing mention here. No significant coverage found for this demo; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:37, 19 June 2010 (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. (post close comment) I'm kicking myself right now. I forgot I was the nominator because I did it on behalf of someone else. However, since I was neutral I'll leave it closed. If someone want's to reopen it then be my guest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (Johnny Duhan album)

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

Completing on behalf of User:24.4.101.72. I remain neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page

Deletion rationale - This is an epic fail of general and album notability criteria. The only "references" are to sales sites and/or the artist site. The tone of the article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and appear to reflect the article author's opinions more than anything else. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs tidying up, but this is an officially released album by a notable artist. Johnny Duhan's Allmusic entry refers to Flame as an "impressive" collection of songs. I believe that WP:NALBUMS is satisfied here. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has information and isn't a stub.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I basically agree with Bruce1ee above, though my vote is "weak" because there is not much else to go on. Regardless, this article could be an acceptable album stub. The original commenter is correct about how the article in too opinion-based and not very encyclopedic, but that's not a good reason for deletion in itself. Bad prose can be removed or corrected. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (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

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At That Point}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You could be happy}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun In My Pocket (Album)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Kelly Rowland album}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smashing the Opponent}}