User:Davidzundel and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:22, 11 October 2008

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Albums and songs.

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From The Ground Up (Dizzy album)

Non-notable, download only album, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This article seems to be closly related to On The Inside Looking Out, also a download only album from the same artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Claimed "hit" song did not chart w/Billboard. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd Senses

Requesting delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources and couldn't find anything that confirms its release Wolfer68 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails music and crystal ball policies doktorb _words^deeds 09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Also issues with promo/ver/nn. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Original Author: Dates of recording referenced from official PsyOpus site and one song is online. I believe this confirms the album's existence. Dan.noye (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.noye (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - previous post confirms that the article is crystal balling. Until a definitive release date is announced by the label or the act, the recording does not officially exist. B.Wind (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Återförödelse (album)

Delete. Another nonnotable album from the band without an article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete Reason #498 why I want A7 expanded to albums. Band has no article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete to the third power - non-notable album by a non-notable act on a non-notable label (yes, I challenge the assertion of notability of the label on its article). B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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 speedy keep, no argument for deletion given, original afd tagging by anon edit-warrior clearly made in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce

In my opinion, this AFD is part of an on-going edit war between an anon with a floating IP and other users. (The edit summary of an editor removing the AFD reads, "someone needs to study the correlation between vandalism and ethnicity.") I got dragged into this mess declining a speedy deletion added by the anon. He'd also added an AFD tag but failed to complete the discussion subpage and list the AFD. I removed both. He re-added both with an admonition to not remove deletion tags. I left a testy edit summary suggesting he complete the process and again declined the speedy. Another editor removed the AFD tag. The anonymous editor reverted but again did not complete the process. Pro forma nom, as I can't leave this hanging in Limbo any longer. See my "keep" below. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dzied. Should have crossed this particular "t". I guess I have to speak for the anon who started this. I'll assume good faith and say the anon feels the subject is not notable in that it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the subject lacks inherent notability. That the sources I listed are deficient. As pointed out below, he could not complete the process, and may not have realized that he was not finished. Unfortunately, I've not been able to establish a meaningful dialogue. Dloh cierekim 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an anon refuses to talk, a proper solution IMO is to protect the article from anonymous (since the IP is floating and it cannot be blocked for disruption), rather than to drag other people into wasting their time. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Constructive edits are being made by anons. I'm assuming good faith because there may be some language barrier there. ACheers, Dloh cierekim 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors without accounts cannot complete the AFD process, because they are prohibited from creating new pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. It probably wasn't the best approach to demand that someone complete a process that they are barred from completing. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor certainly could have asked for help or discussed on talk page, rather than edit warring, as the page history hows him doing. As it went 24 hours without any progress, I went ahead and completed the process. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Folk songs are probably inherently notable from the start because of their long-term cultural impact. The sort of thing a not-paper resource should include. (If we were talkin' about "mah noble Stewball," I'd know I was on terra firma. ) In attempting to source this, I've been limited by not only language barriers, but by alphabet barriers as well. However, I was able to find a number of mentions on the Internet. The Balkans is a region with a large number of languages, so there may be references I have missed. Hopefully, someone can help me out with the sourcing. So far, the editors of the article have not.

Appears notable--

Other potential sourcing--

"Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce"
"Зајди, зајди, јасно сонце".
News article (in Macedonian) talking about the song and Aleksandar Sarievski. (cached).
8 Google book hits in Bulgarian.
Google scholar hit in Bulgarian. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Found an alternate spelling link connecting this to the movie 300. See that article for a bit more. Dloh cierekim 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficient sourcing for notability. Classic folk songs are notable; well-known widespread modern adaptations may be--there is sufficient evidence to show that this one is. DGG (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep. No arguments for deletion are presented. AfD is not a venue for wikipedia dispute resolution. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep--this is a fascinating article, and I hope some good (and objective) editing will be applied to it. Maybe a Russian can get in on the action? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the edit warriors have not yet come here to say the article should be kept and why. Dloh cierekim 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting POV vandalism is different to edit-warring. The only reason the vandal wanted the page deleted was because he wasn't happy that his vandalism was being dealt with (and therefore he couldn't express his POV). Balkan Fever 09:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep--This is a most popular traditioanal and antologic macedonian song. --Raso mk (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. The bulgarian POV in this article is needless. They have allready own song "Černej Goro"

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. MBisanz ^talk 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Roll On (Kid Rock song)

Song hasn't charted yet. Yes, it has been released, but it still hasn't charted and I can't find any sources. Wouldn't make a good redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete again, as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Music Video is airing on cmt,vh-1,mtv for the last week their's your proof its a single. It rubs 4:52 it also the 1st video that comes for search under him at you tube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovingangster (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The issue isn't proof that it exists, that is without doubt, but whether it is notable enough to have it's own article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Obviously this is a single!!! I think it shouldn't be delete. --200.117.198.204 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect into the main album article. Eatabullet (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The single, and the video in particular, actually has received a fair amount of press. I've added six references just now. There's enough there for the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per sourcing supplied by User:Paul Erik as noted above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

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 Lost Boys: The Tribe. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost Boys: The Tribe (soundtrack)

Non-notable movie soundtrack with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into film article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into film article. No reason to simply delete. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Lost Boys: The Tribe. This is as clear-cut a merge candidate as I've ever seen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh (song)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The song being in most of the Winnie the Pooh series and all of the movies does not make the song notable. Schuym1 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bother-- Delete Wow, what a dilemma... trying to describe a song without being allowed to quote from the copyrighted lyrics! Without any frame of reference, this article has never been much more than some amateur literary criticism ("The lyric gives an overview of the characters and the roles each plays in relation to Pooh himself.") The only useful information -- written by the Sherman Brothers, first featured in the 1966 Disney film "Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree" -- can be mentioned at Winnie the Pooh#Disney media. No use for this article. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Minimal quoting of lyrics is allowed under fair use. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete notability is not inherited. Thin boy 00 @105, i.e. 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - A theme song is not inherently notable merely because it attaches to a notable medium. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. At face value it is not difficult to know this song is notable as it is a theme song to a very successful franchise. It has been heard all over the world in all media (Well, ok - maybe not print media) for many years. If it were only based on worldwide exposure and identifiability I would say keep. However as these deletion threads are based on the guidelines, this is a strong keep. Guidelines say a song "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" would be notable. Shanangai Quartet, Carly Simon, Tatiana, The Chieftains, Tommy Emmanuel and Louis Prima have all done versions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments made by Soundvisions1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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. and not likely to be one. TravellingCari 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot Demo

Is this topic notable enough to have its own article, or the material should be merged into the band's article? Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a particular notability policy that you feel the article fails? There are a large number of Demos which have their own articles, most are not cited as well as or as comprehensive as this article. Black ngold29 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I wasn't sure but I went to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and I saw this Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
KEEP - Per "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable", I would argue that this is notable, because it's nto just a demo that the band created, it was the demo that was isntrumental in them recruiting Ross Robinson and then got them signed to Roadrunner records. This article is comprehensive and I believe it is notable enough.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think it's notable enough. Plus I made another version on Slipkot Wikia, so you can see that one. It's good for there, as that wiki is dedicated to Slipknot (I created most of the pages there), but not here. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - no case has been presented that the article fails any notability guidelines. If this article were to be merged into the band's page it would create undue weight on the subject. Black ngold29 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

grrr: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of how to read. This demo has recieved "independent coverage in reliable sources" from MTV, as well as coverage two books about the band which are atleast second party coverage. This article has better coverage and referencing, not to mention length and verifiability that the vast majority of demo articles on WP. Not to mention the band's notability in itself; if it were from a band that has had no sucess, then I wouldn't be so supporting, but Slipknot has debuted in the top five of the Billboards and many other countries' charts multiple times, we should do well to present their full history. Black ngold29 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I believe that Bramblestar is correct and that Nergaal has a point. I think this article is best if merged within the band's wikipage. Beano (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be disrespectful to any efforts that Bramblestar may have made in creating a Slipknot wiki, but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That Wiki is far from on par with Wikipedia, I am here to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Slipknot articles, to be quite frank I (and I'm sure a lot of other people too) couldn't care less about another Wiki because Wikipedia is the most popular wiki and I'm here to help improve peoples understanding of Slipknot and all related articles and Wikipedia being the most popular Wiki is the obvious choice. I agree with Blackngold too, merging this topic with the band's article will add way too much weight to the subject and this article is actually better referenced, covered and represented that many demo (and even album) articles. Plus the notability of the band themselves adds significant weight to the notability of the demo. I think this is a case of WP:IAR. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the wiki. It is currently very weak, so I'm just helping to expand it. That wiki is on wikia.com, and I'm just a helper on that site. And I don't find that comment you made about my efforts to be disrespectful. My first contribution to that site was the third page created there; a page for their song "Purity". Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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 Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Supa Ugly

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

Non notable mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the track (not a mixtape, it's a single song from a mixtape) is quite notable: MTV, MTV again, on Yahoo Music, a bit (but w/ some non-trivial info of the song) on Billboard.com, Entertainment Weekly weighs in, lyrics are on a BET blog post, New York Times said Jay-Z's mother chastised him for the lyrics of the song, etc. The article is badly sourced, should renamed "Super Ugly" and could be better off merged into Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, but notability is not an issue. hateless 07:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable, but merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, of which this track is a part. 86.44.28.125 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud This song doesn't deserve it's own article for notability reasons and WP:MUSIC, but the content is justly deserved in the article of the album. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Supa get rid of since it fails WP:MUSIC by itself. Coverage seems incidental: his mom chastised him for it, etc. Presumably merge any info not yet in Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. VG ☎ 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep This song is very notable. Been topic of discussion on MTV and BET documentaries covering the feud between Nas & Jay-z. No brainer here. Greyskies007 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Greyskies007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. also: this is the users FIRST EDIT

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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Children In Pieces

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. Additionally, the article's title formatting is also incorrect (capital "In"). This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per nom. Hiding T 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My Dearest Love

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per nom. Hiding T 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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. Rather than relist this again, I'm treating it like an uncontested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aeveron

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable label. Also, the languages are wrong. This is only on the english wiki, not the others. No touring, nothing about them on google. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the album pages:

Undead Warrior (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. 75.172.24.170 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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 The Fixxers. per WP:MUSIC Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Midnight Life (album)

Non-notable unreleased album that is unlikely to see release; little ~~or no~~ media coverage ~~and no references~~. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums ~~and WP:V~~. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A very quick Google search found these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The last one suggests it was released as a download-only album. Should be sufficient for improving and sourcing the article, and more extensive searching seems likely to find more. If an article on the album is deemed inappropriate, a merge to the group's article would seem far more constructive than deletion.--Michig (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:V stricken from nom. Any verifiable content should certainly be added to The Fixxers' article (which appears to need a lot of work). Above links are pretty much all trivial mentions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I Looked At You (via WP:PROD on 19 April 2008)
Moby songs in other media (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)

A06 Vs. AIDS EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
B. Darvill's Wild West Show (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Breed 77 (album) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Composition No. 1 (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Breakin' Up (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Demonstration (EP) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Dying to Say This to You EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Euromix 7 (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Fire It Up ! (EP) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Futile (EP) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Her Name was Alex (Robbi McMillen EP) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Live at the Loft (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Lawn Funeral EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Morbid Angel's eighth studio album (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
MilkinSorgin EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Promo 2003 (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Promo CD (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Raindrops Rainbow EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Really Something EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Selections (Shaye EP) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Showbread Promotional EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Something Wicked This Way Comes EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Snails (The Format album) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Something to Lust About (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Statement of Intent (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
The Classic (112 album) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
This Is Me- EP (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Wake Up, O Sleeper (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
The Mystery (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

Yakusoku wa Iranai (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)
Yubiwa (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)

Crank dat homeless man (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007)

A Little Piece of Heaven (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007)
Bolga Zohdoomah (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007)
Bordel ambiant (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007)
Happy Is a Yuppie Word (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007)
Kryptonite (Mario song) (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007)

for occasional archiving

Ammunition (album) (via WP:PROD on 12 December 2007) Deleted
Babylon (album 2003) (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted
Eeyore (song) (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Kept; subsequently taken to AFD
I'm Still At It (via WP:PROD on 1 December 2007) Kept
Night (song) (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted
Stephanie McIntosh's second studio album (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted