User:The Sharpest Lives/central

GA nominations

Albums

This includes record albums, soundtracks, and video albums.

Lucid (Aṣa album) (talk | history | discuss review) (1 review, 10 GAs) Versace1608 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (1 review, 0 GAs) BlondArkhangel (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Born in the U.S.A. (talk | history | start review) (39 reviews, 75 GAs) Zmbro (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: Co-nominated with Moisejp
Something Else from The Move (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 13 GAs) VirreFriberg (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Life Cycle (Sakerock album) (talk | history | start review) (9 reviews, 8 GAs) IanTEB (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Horses (album) (talk | history | start review) (1 review, 6 GAs) Holiday56 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
A Storm in Heaven (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 13 GAs) MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Songs from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (talk | history | start review) – 2012 EP by Nick Jonas – (0 reviews, 1 GA) Artmanha (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
People...Hold On (talk | history | start review) (3 reviews, 3 GAs) Reppop (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
80's Ladies (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 0 GAs) HereIGoAgain (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: The article was re-nominated due to an error in prose, spelling that caused the GA nomination (at that time) to fail and has been subsequently addressed in a copyedit request, fixing those issues.
The Feminine Divine (talk | history | start review) (142 reviews, 130 GAs) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Blood & Chocolate (talk | history | start review) (39 reviews, 75 GAs) Zmbro (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
An Evening with Silk Sonic (talk | history | start review) (207 reviews, 49 GAs) MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Songs

This includes songs from any era.

Stronger (Kanye West song) (talk | history | start review) – 2007 single by Kanye West – (588 reviews, 98 GAs) Kyle Peake (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I Wonder (Kanye West song) (talk | history | start review) (588 reviews, 98 GAs) Kyle Peake (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Cómo Se Cura una Herida (talk | history | start review) (10 reviews, 111 GAs) Magiciandude (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The Alchemy (talk | history | start review) – 2024 song by Taylor Swift – (38 reviews, 65 GAs) Ippantekina (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Zari (song) (talk | history | start review) – 2024 song by Marina Satti – (0 reviews, 12 GAs) Nascar9919 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Not in Love (Crystal Castles song) (talk | history | start review) (18 reviews, 35 GAs) Skyshifter (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hay Amores (talk | history | discuss review) (0 reviews, 0 GAs) 1arch (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. (336 reviews, 149 GAs) Sammi Brie (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
The American Dream Is Killing Me (talk | history | start review) – 2023 single by Green Day – (1 review, 2 GAs) Leafy46 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Outside (Mariah Carey song) (talk | history | start review) (19 reviews, 7 GAs) Heartfox (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm in It (talk | history | start review) (588 reviews, 98 GAs) Kyle Peake (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I Wanna Be Your Ghost (talk | history | start review) – 2022 single by Gen Hoshino – (9 reviews, 8 GAs) IanTEB (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Stayaway (talk | history | start review) – 2919 song by American band Muna – (6 reviews, 57 GAs) Changedforbetter (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Moon (Kanye West song) (talk | history | start review) (588 reviews, 98 GAs) Kyle Peake (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Bottle Pop (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 3 GAs) MrHyacinth (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If I Thought You'd Ever Change Your Mind (talk | history | start review) – Song written by John Cameron – (0 reviews, 13 GAs) VirreFriberg (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Marching Through Georgia (talk | history | start review) – American marching song by Henry Clay Work – (0 reviews, 0 GAs) DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
H.A.M. (talk | history | start review) (588 reviews, 98 GAs) Kyle Peake (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Girl, So Confusing (talk | history | start review) – 2024 promotional single by Charli XCX and Lorde – (0 reviews, 26 GAs) De88 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Hard to Love (Blackpink song) (talk | history | discuss review) (0 reviews, 5 GAs) Lililolol (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. (4 reviews, 0 GAs) Royiswariii (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Requesting another experienced editor to give this a second look, as the reviewer has been indefinitely blocked for violating site policy. Thank you.
Talk That Talk (Twice song) (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 5 GAs) Lililolol (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Every Night (Hannah Diamond song) (talk | history | start review) (18 reviews, 35 GAs) Skyshifter (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Fresh Out the Slammer (talk | history | discuss review) – 2024 song by Taylor Swift – (38 reviews, 65 GAs) Ippantekina (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. (9 reviews, 1 GA) Medxvo (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Cherry on Top (Bini song) (talk | history | start review) – 2024 single by Bini – (4 reviews, 0 GAs) Royiswariii (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Kyu-Kurarin (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 0 GAs) Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
My Boy Only Breaks His Favorite Toys (talk | history | start review) – 2024 song by Taylor Swift – (38 reviews, 65 GAs) Ippantekina (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Fate ((G)I-dle song) (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 5 GAs) Lililolol (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
The Black Dog (song) (talk | history | start review) – 2024 song by Taylor Swift – (2 reviews, 24 GAs) Gained (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Snooze (song) (talk | history | discuss review) (14 reviews, 16 GAs) PSA (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (54 reviews, 19 GAs) Arconning (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Pink Pony Club (talk | history | start review) – 2020 single by Chappell Roan – (0 reviews, 12 GAs) Nascar9919 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion candidates

Static/Crash

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering the album (Google search). The only coverage mentioning the album title is this short music blog post and it's not significant coverage, just a passing mention. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to The Mark Inside. I found two reviews from Exclaim! ([1], [2]), a review from The Coast (newspaper) ([3]), and a few sentences about the album in a NOW article about the lead singer and guitarist ([4]). But all of that coverage is too brief to be significant. toweli (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This overall doesn't meet notability. Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete and/or redirect. This, once again, is an old holdover from a time when Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any album recorded by a notable band regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism — but that's long since been overturned, and an album now has to get over WP:GNG on its own steam. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

2 Hands (song)

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

WP:TOOSOON. A single instagram post does not confer notability(!). Searche do not come up with anything. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, all I can find on it is social media announcements and a few passing mentions in RS, nothing that meets WP:NSONG. The usual solution for this is to redirect to the album, but a new one hasn't been announced yet. The correct title of 2 Hands already redirects to Tate McRae discography, so if the song charts or otherwise becomes notable after its release, then that redirect should be expanded, rather than this one. Wikishovel (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: TOOSOON indeed and this is the only media mention I can find. [5]. No notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Heat Melts Cube

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

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I searched and couldn't find any evidence that this topic has been picked up by reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@216.20.155.153:

Existence ≠ notability. Songs must meet WP:NSONG to merit a standalone article.
Wikis are not reliable sources because they are self-published and lack editorial review.
Interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete I don't buy the "DJ Yella confirmed the existence of this track" argument. If you listen to the interview (linked to in the Lost Media Wiki article), he just says that there's one instrumental that he has with no Eazy-E lyrics on it that might have been reserved for an Ice Cube diss track and he doesn't want to speculate much further. The whole article is based on speculation and is potentially misleading since it makes a number of unverified, and probably unverifiable, assertions. For instance, where is there any solid(ish) evidence that this supposed track is called "Heat Melts Cube"? The sourcing is horrendous : Lost Media Wiki is obviously unreliable. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Grooving to the Moscow Beat

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

I removed a notability tag because there is a rating from Allmusic. Another editor reverted that because it isn't a review in their view. So, lets settle this. Is this album notable or not? Tag has been on the article since 2012. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - after a search for the required "multiple, non-trivial, published works", I could find only one borderline source in the LA Weekly, which I added to the article. Everything else I could find were either blog posts or other user-generated content, which also applies to Allmusic. While the band is notable, this particular album is not unless at least one more source can be provided and some sourced detail about reviewer reception can be added to the article. Certainly an Allmusic rating, which is user-generated, is not sufficient to establish notability and shouldn't have been used as an excuse to remove a valid maintenance template. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The blue star "AllMusic Rating" is official from the site's editors and is not user-generated. The red star "User Rating" is the user-generated one. However, there is consensus thar an AllMusic page with an official rating but no official review does not convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. Skyerise (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Make Trade Fair (album)

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

Article about a compilation album, not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to make was that it had notable artists on it, and no sourcing was required beyond listing the tracks -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums now have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability regardless of who was involved in them.
But there are no footnotes here at all, and a search for better sourcing came up empty: even with highly specialized search terms (i.e. just "Make Trade Fair album" wasn't enough) to filter out hits on Coldplay's involvement in Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign, I found absolutely nothing about this album but a few primary sources that aren't support for notability.
The mere fact that an album exists is no longer "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - agree that there are not sufficient sources to support this article, having checked Rock's Backpages and Wikipedia Library in particular. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Plan of Action

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

Album not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia's approach to album notability used to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, etc.) supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it.
But the only attempted notability claim here is that one song on it is asserted as being the band's "most popular", with no attempt at either sourcing the claim as accurate or even quantifying how their songs' relative popularity was even determined in the first place, and the sole source in the article is a deadlink that didn't even provide the correct title of the content for recoverability purposes — and a Google search for better sources only turned up directory entries, label PR and streaming platforms rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the album, while a deeper ProQuest search found a couple of album reviews, but nothing that verified the purported most-popularity of "L'Aventurier", and not enough reviews to claim that this would pass the bar on "volume of coverage" grounds alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to The_Kingpins_(Canadian_band)#Discography -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Tooth & Nail Records discography

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

I don't believe it passes WP:LSC WP:NLIST., because this is essentially a product "catalog" of a record label, which is a publisher. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Lists. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Record label discography lists are useful and common. Since the label itself is notable, I'd argue the set of releases is notable. Since it is too large to roll into the main article, it makes sense to retain as a standalone list. glman (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

~~Withdrawing my hasty thoughts for more reflection. glman (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)~~

Restoring my original opinion. glman (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Discographical information is encyclopedic and necessary for robust coverage of bands and labels. This is, unquestionably, a notable record label. The size of the list does mean it makes sense to have as a standalone article, though a merge is also an option. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Just a refresher on a relevant discussion from the past Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_59#WP:NOTDIRECTORY,_NOTWEBHOST_for_companies_and_bios which didn't find consensus on exhaustive product catalog for publishers. So, simply splitting off as "product catalog of a publisher" standalone seems like getting around the loophole.*:Graywalls (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Lists of "product catalogs of publishers" are routinely notable if the "product" is art. We have, and certainly should have, (attempts at) full catalog lists of publishers like Warner Bros., Pixar, Square, and Motown. If the label is notable, we should cover its artistic output encyclopedically, and that includes discographical information. Chubbles (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Please link to guidelines, or discussions corroborating this, thank you. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
We have never had debates about whether a Pixar movie or Final Fantasy game is a "product". Of course it is a product, but of course that is besides the point. Covering them here in the encyclopedia is covering art history. So, too, is covering Christian rock and emo and metalcore released by an impactful, significant, influential label. Chubbles (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Lists such as these are useful for sure. However, they must still meet WP:NLIST by having significant coverage that discusses the discography as a group. Are these sources available? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment If we allow things on basis of one person saying "useful" there will be someone saying anything is useful. We'll end up with a "list of Signature Select condiments" and end up with an exhaustive list of their products with Safeway.com as the reference, or the "items sold at Home Depot" and end up with exhaustive list of SKUs. Some hole in the wall record labels are not held sacred over else and I think we shouldn't have product catalogs of this nature. This is going to cause a trend of starting a stand alone list for unacceptable contents to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between a list of "condiments" or "items sold at Home Depot" and of albums. A discography of a record label that has existed for over 30 years, has major distribution deals, and has signed many notable artists is objectively not the same as a list of UPC items at the grocery store, nor is it the same as a minor indie label listing their releases. glman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Glen Campbell Plays 12 String Guitar

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

I couldn't find sources to add proving that it meets WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Glen Campbell discography#Compilations and re-issues where the album is mentioned, since it fails WP:NALBUM. Left guide (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

From Me to You (Crunchy Black album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the first discussion, no evidence that this album is notable, and since the artist's page is just a redirect to the far more notable group he is a part of, this doesn't even serve a purpose as a redirect. No chart positions, no certifications, only one review that really goes in-depth about the album (the AllMusic writeup is more of an overview of the release, while the XXL piece is an interview so not independent), no evidence of notability to pass WP:NALBUMS. My attempt to have the page speedy deleted per WP:A9 (see the last discussion) was declined. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - This is tougher than it looks because the album received a couple of pro reviews though they were pretty short. However, the rapper was declared non-notable outside of Three 6 Mafia in this recent AfD, so it's tough to justify an album article. The album's existence could be mentioned briefly at the Three 6 Mafia article, especially because Crunchy Black is still with them, at least intermittently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

List of songs based on a film

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

Same issues as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that retell a work of literature, but that one at least has references - here we have nothing. Just OR trivia, with most songs here not even seemingly notable (not blue linked). Fails WP:NLIST and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Albums and songs, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment In some of these, I wonder if the directionality is backwards or indeterminate. Purple Rain is from the soundtrack to the film, so which came first? Jclemens (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Addressed; see page. As for Purple Rain (the song), it was written before but was obviously used in the film, and is therefore out of the present list. Feel free to create List of films based on songs, though. I'd be happy to help. A lot of very reliable sources exist on the topic. And I do mean a lot. The category exists. Feel free to add it to Purple Rain (the film). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - This article dates way back 2006, the dark ages of WP when it was fun to create lists of geek trivia. An article of this title may have some encyclopedic value if it had references to serious movie/music histories, but here we just have a bunch of original research and fixing it would be a TNT waste of volunteer resources. I second the previous commenter's point as well, because some songs here are soundtrack entries described incorrectly as being "about" the associated film. From personal knowledge I can also say that several songs here, especially those by metal bands, are actually inspired by books that were themselves adapted into films. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you have a look? I’ve added and removed a few things. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledge the work that has been done on the article after the nomination and after my vote, but I am sticking with my reasoning. There are still many soundtrack songs incorrectly described as being "based on" the film. I also remain unconvinced that this isn't all original research because the various songs listed could be literally about a film, could be a tribute to a film (which is the case for many of the metal songs), could simply namedrop a film's title as a cultural reference, or could satirize a film (e.g. Weird Al's "Ode to a Superhero"). The entire premise of this list article simply falls apart because it can't stick with "based on". Also, I agree with a comment below about many of the found sources being opinion-based listcicles, though that is not true for all of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Even if this was a topic that passed the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, the article is completely unsourced, comprised entirely of WP:OR, and, as pointed out already, is filled with flat out incorrect information. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
i’ve started cleaning up and sourcing. Let me know if that looks better to you. It still can be much better. Only went trough the 1st half. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: (and a STRONG keep). WP:NLIST indicates that lists can be kept if coverage about their subject as a set exists. It is obviously the case here. Even a cursory check can provide sources that prove that.... https://screencrush.com/songs-inspired-by-movies/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/07/26/25-songs-inspired-by-movies/ https://collider.com/best-songs-inspired-by-movies/ etc, etc, ETC. Cleanup the page, add references, refine inclusion criteria, etc, sure but deletion, no. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The issue is that any type of list or article on this topic based on sources would essentially need to be created from scratch. The current list was created without the use of any sources, making it entirely WP:OR and is rife with errors and dubious entries. I very rarely ever reference this essay in AFDs, but in this case I agree with doomsdayer520 that this is a TNT situation - cleanup would essentially mean starting over. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, maybe. But that is not a reason to delete the page, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
So how do you suggest we improve it? Ideally, someone would rewrite it now, but if nobody steps up, are we supposed to keep this mess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
We don't keep mess, we keep pages. And Mushy Yank steps up and improves them. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@PiotrusWhat do you think of its current state? It takes a lot of time, so not finished. I might finish later if I have time and courage. and I know it’s not yet ready for GA, don’t worry, :D. A table with dates (song/film)/album title would be nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mushy Yank I am a bit busy ATM, feel free to treat my current vote as having changed delete to draftify. I am still concerned this is too much a trivia listicle, but it if it kept, it's ok-ish. It is a much better listicle than most others I've seen. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. There might be a hypothetical notable article with a slightly different scope, but there would be no reliable statements to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Added/removed things; tell me if you think it’s better, please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY being in progress. I believe this topic fullfills WP:NLIST and the issues can be solved editorially. Thanks to the start in improving done by Mushy Yank there is now something to preserve and WP:TNT is no longer applicable. If concerns on erroneous information remain, unreferenced material can be removed. Ideally, the available secondary sources are used first to check out what can be referenced. But the sources available and already in place show that this is a feasible list with quite a number of possible entries. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of 13 references such as reliable newspapers, websites, and books with others being added so that WP:NLIST is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete Indiscriminate list with no obvious utility, especially since many of the songs were literally created FOR the film in question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm and Pokelego999: since many of the songs were literally created FOR the film in question If you read what's been written above you'll see that this is an error which is fixable and currently in the process of being fixed. So WP:BATHWATER would apply. Daranios (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Other issues are still standing, such as a lack of a discernible scope and a lack of coverage of this topic area. Even if one issue is being fixed, there are many more insurmountable problems that are unlikely to be resolved that hinder this article from being notable and a viable list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What problems? The article does not need to be notable, its subject must be considered so per consensus. But maybe that is what you mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As for scope and coverage see page and below. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete there is no significant coverage analyzing the topic of songs based on a film as a whole. It's an INDISCRIMINATE list otherwise with an unclear scope of what should be included (Especially per Zx, as many songs were made for the film and not based on them per se). I don't see much of a need for this list in any degree. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Define indiscriminate. See page. See sources with list (a set). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/best-songs-inspired-by-movies-bowie-dylan-clash/ Read intro. Read intro of other articles. Coverage about the topic as a whole regarding respective subgenres metal/horror, or Dylan, etc exists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

My problem is that every source brought up is just a listicle. There's no significant analysis in these nor is there any without the listicles. It's the same thing as citing "Top Ten Supervillains That Use Lasers" and attempting to build an article around five to ten of those kinds of sources. It might provide some decent coverage for a specific list entry, but not for the subject as a whole, which is what's needed to establish subject notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep There's a probably a majority here that have good sources. And WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set", meaning that there could be other reasons. Well, if a topic is covered by a tabloid sources as a group but also individual cases are frequently mentioned by better sources, then that's good enough for me. Wizmut (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Celestial (Ed Sheeran song)

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

I had previously BOLDly BLAR'd this article, redirecting and merging content to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. This was reverted with a request to take this to AfD, hence this nomination. My rationale for the original BLAR was because of a sheer lack of significant coverage on this song. There are quite literally no sources discussing impact or popularity, whether that be in the form of reviews, editorial pieces, or just opinion pieces. All that exists are news pieces discussing its announcement, and the bulk of these are primarily within the span of the first two weeks following its reveal, showing a notable WP:SUSTAINED issue, as all sources after that are announcements over its remix in the DLCs (Which don't really say that much beyond confirming that it exists and nothing more), trivial mentions, or mentions in unreliable sources.

While it's charted a lot, per WP:NSONGS, this does not outright indicate notability, only that there may be a chance at notability. The content here is relatively small, with the bulk of this article's text just being charting and release information. Per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page," and " Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page" Pokémon Scarlet and Violet's article contains information on the entire soundtrack of the game, of which Sheeran's song is included. It is overall more helpful to readers to be able to read about information relating to Celestial in a section that also covers other associated music, allowing them to get an understanding of the wider context surrounding this song, while not needing to go to a separate, unneeded split to get a full understanding of the game's soundtrack.

As a result of the above points, I don't see why this article meets individual, standalone notability, and I believe it is better off merged into Scarlet and Violet's article, where its information can be preserved and better appreciated by readers. The contents of my previous merger, as well as an additional merger of some content at the request of Ss112, who reverted my initial BLAR, are present at SV's article at present, which should help illustrate that this article is small enough to where its content can be slotted into an article subsection. While charting is not yet present, this can likely be added without being a detriment to page length by including drop-down menus that can be expanded by reader choice. I hope this helps clarify my rationale for my prior BLAR, and my current rationale for believing this is not suited for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Ss112, who reverted my BLAR, to offer their thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. While I am very aware of WP:NSONGS and quote it regularly myself, charting this extensively—making the top 10 in the UK, the top 40 in Europe and other regions, appearing on multiple year-end charts, and being certified in at least four countries, along with the already present media coverage—makes this a truly baffling BOLD redirect and nomination. Redirecting to a Pokémon article makes it appear that the extent of its existence is being made for those games and that it achieved nothing else, and that's clearly not true. There is also still media coverage on this, and as stated at the nominator's talk page, I do not believe what is on the article at present is the extent of it. Songs also don't need to have continuing nor "sustained" relevance let alone an "impact" in the current day to have been notable in the year of their release—I don't know what that's about. WP:SUSTAINED states that short bursts of news coverage "may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", but as stated, the perhaps meagre news coverage at the time of its release is not all the song achieved nor is the extent of its notability. Ss112 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I have clarified that I have done several BEFORE searches on this subject. This is almost certainly the extent of the coverage, at least in terms of what I could find. Almost every source I could find stated mostly the same things about release information, namely that it was made by Ed Sheeran and was featured in and made for a Pokémon game. What other information I could find was charting information and the like cited here.

Perhaps it's due to a difference between how the music side of Wikipedia handles subject notability and how I'm used to it in my subject areas, but to me SUSTAINED coverage is needed to show that this subject had a long-term impact beyond the scope of its release. The lack of real coverage I discussed in my nomination makes that difficult to see. Additionally, I feel your argument isn't really fulfilling Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sources to verify that this song had a lasting impact, and we need sources to show those charting numbers have an impact beyond being just numbers on a list. It all comes down to sources, and these are sources that I could not find during my search per what I have already clarified in my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
You don't feel that "my argument" fulfils WP:V? What do I need to verify in what I said? Songs do not need to have a "lasting impact" to be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as pointed out by QuietHere below, the song appears on multiple year-end lists, meaning it has had sustained success for at least two years in several regions. Oh, but those are meaningless "numbers on a list" and we should redirect to a Pokémon video game article—righto. Three keep votes and counting. Continuing to argue with everybody who disagrees does not help. Like you said, you really do not understand music notability and you've proven that twice now. Ss112 06:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Per below discussion, you haven't provided any sourcing actually verifying that these numbers on charts mean anything. I've read and familiarized myself with Wikipedia:NSONGS before this discussion when formulating my rationale, and it says that these charts are only an indicator of notability, and don't actually provide it; this means that they need significant coverage to back them up, and there is very little in the way of Wikipedia:SIGCOV (As shown by Kung Fu Man below) that justifies why this needs the separation I specified with my Wikipedia:NOPAGE argument. We need sources illustrating that this song is notable to back up what charts exist, hence my WP:V argument, and we need them to show this song and its charts had an impact beyond just basic announcements, as those are just Wikipedia:ROUTINE news coverage that do not count toward subject notability. I hope this clarifies what I mean a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Then that comes down to how one defines "trivial". I personally don't find the coverage that exists on "Celestial" on the article and out there at present to be "trivial", although I conceded above that it might be considered "meagre" by some. WP:NSONGS also literally says "songs and singles are probably notable" if they have been the subject of these works, not that they are only notable when they have been the subject of said works. There is also notability besides charting—it has been certified. That is not covered by the first point of NSONGS, as certifications are neither "music or sales charts" nor are they always tied to such. I am not going to agree with you. I already know what your point is so it is immaterial to me how much you continue to clarify your point. Ss112 18:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per charting and certifications. If you're concerned about SUSTAINED, it is worth noting that the charts span multiple years, meaning it appeared on those charts for at least a few months. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - the number of national charts here is astounding. Songs don't chart like this globally and then fail to scrounge up a handful of GNG-satisfying sources. It's near logistically impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I did multiple Wikipedia:BEFOREs for this and turned up nothing. I'm not making this rationale assuming there's no sources, I genuinely found nothing beyond what I mentioned in my nom. If significant coverage large enough to satisfy both notability and Wikipedia:NOPAGE is found, then I'm willing to withdraw, but I make this nom only out of a severe concern for a lack of actual coverage outside of its charts, which don't indicate notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This album charted in 20+ counties and went Gold in 4 of them. That's extremely mainstream. I'm trying to think of a video game equivalent so you can understand how unlikely of a scenario what you're proposing in this nomination is to the music Wikiproject members. Probably the equivalent of nominating a Bravely Default or a Paper Mario level-game for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the point of confusion there is that with games there's still at least something, you know, *said* in terms of analysis, reaction or at least anything. Even with games, just winning an award alone would mean as much as the reviews discussing the title. It's jarring to see it in contrast to the hurdles with fictional characters, where the closest parallel to it would be "did you see how much media that character appeared in? They must be notable!"

Why is charting alone sufficient when we demand so much more from every other aspect related to the video game project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not that charting alone is enough, it's just the logistical absurdity in situations like this, where a song is a global hit, but editors think that there aren't a few articles out there somewhere. Maybe a more apt comparison is when misguided editors talk about nominating video game icons like Mario or Sonic for deletion because they chose to ignore their obvious massive legacy in favor of a poor Google search result? (That's probably a bit generous to Sheeran's song here, but still.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Serge, that's just WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST though, isn't it? But with what I was able to find at all, that's just enough for barely a paragraph, and all of it ties to Scarlet and Violet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I love citing that essay too, but I don't think it should be a substitute for using common sense either. How does a song get played prominently in 20+ countries, get certified Gold in 4 separate countries, and make multiple year-end charts, and not have 2-3 sources written about it? It's logistically impossible. I think this is one of those situations where nominators get so caught up in the letter of the policies/guidelines that they forget the actual purpose of what we're trying to do here. When we create guidelines to prevent trivial, non-notable items of music from having articles, were they really trying to eliminate content like this? Are we really saying that a massive pop star collaborated with arguably one of the biggest franchises in existence, and its output, while a global commercial success, isn't notable? I don't like invoking WP:IAR, but if the guidelines miss the mark this badly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that Bravely Default and Paper Mario actually have significant coverage attached to them. I can Google one of their games and find tons of reviews, information on the game's development with a bit of digging. I've dug a fair bit into this subject and already told you about the results. Notability cannot be assumed from statistics; this argument so far has come across to me as an argument of "It has to be important," rather than something actually grounded in any form of guideline or policy. If notability came from solely statistics, then BFDI would have an article by now with how many views that series has racked up on Youtube.

Just because it's unlikely or seems inconceivable doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd recommend doing a BEFORE before making assumptions on the subject's breadth of coverage, as if there is actually coverage I missed, then you'd be able to more effectively disprove some of my arguments, which mostly hinge on the breadth of coverage I have already discussed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know of that difference, it was just a reference point, not a 1:1 comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. Doing a hard dig found really not a whole lot for discussion: a review by the Harvard Crimson, though this is a student paper. There's also three links ([6] [7] [8] that discuss Toby Fox remixing it for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet, one of the first mods for that game removing it, and people getting DMCA'd because it's the end credits song. The rest is just announcements about the song and video with some breakdowns of the video, but no commentary for notability. Additionally couldn't find discussion observing it on the charts. While there can be a reception section built here, it really hinges a lot on whether the Harvard Crimson is usable as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept The Harvard Crimson as a source, because students are not music critics. Regardless, I do not feel that we need a reception section. Ss112 06:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Without it then we have a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument that isn't held up, as there's barely enough meat here for 3 sentences tying it to a video game, and a light blurb about inspiration. That's not a lot of indication of stand alone notability in practice. Even the one Rolling Stone reference I found said little. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm going to go with a merge; all the arguments up here as I pointed out rely on "it charted heavily, so there must be sources, so it's notable". While on paper that sounds feasible, we've seen plenty of cases with other subjects such as fictional characters where it is not i.e. (Diddy Kong, Odie), and as stated above the material that does show notability is tied directly to those games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I've spent so much time arguing the absurdity of the nomination that I hadn't bothered digging into the sourcing. Not sure if this is another case of setting the bar too high? Because I'm seeing pretty mainstream coverage.

Granted, they're not the deepest of dives, but they're dedicated articles by extremely reputable sources approved by WP:VG/S, WP:RSMUSIC, and WP:RSP, and that's all that the GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:NSONG with significant national charting मल्ल (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I realize that continuing to debate solely about sourcing is just going to wind up with a lot of mixed and very heated opinions, so I feel it best to change gears to the other major concern with this article: size. I do feel the WP:NOPAGE rationale I addressed above has been sidelined a bit by the sourcing discussions, and it does address both sides' concerns, and may be a viable way of addressing this in a bit more cut and dry manner. I've outlined my NOPAGE concerns above already, so I don't see a need to restate them again, but this would preserve literally all of the page's information, without losing anything in the process, in a section where it can be adequately discussed alongside other music relating to SV. This article is unlikely to expand further and perfectly coverable in another page, so why not cover the information there? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but notice your user page suggests you're working on a Pokemon WP:GOODTOPIC. While I appreciate when the GA/GT process motivates editors to improve content, I equally strongly oppose editors attempts to use it as a rationale to delete articles. So if that is what this is all about, I object to its deletion/merger even stronger. I find that approach to be highly contradictory to the prospect of building an encyclopedia. The GA/GT process is not a metric for subjects having stand alone articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I just agree with notability standards that are applied site wide that I believe should be upheld. I'm working on Pokémon Good Topics, but if a topic doesn't pan out, it doesn't pan out. Even a brief view at my user page shows that the topic I'm most actively working on isn't even related to Celestial, so I don't see how these two things are even correlated unless you want to directly accuse me of unfounded claims that I'm acting in bad faith. Directly opposing my suggestions solely on a bad faith assumption is an even worse standard to uphold, especially as a site administrator. Please keep this strictly to policy-based discussions, and if you want to accuse me of bad faith, please do so on my talk page, as this kind of thing is not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have listed countless other reasons why I object to this absurd nomination beyond this hypothesis. This was merely an attempt to get understand why you're pushing so hard on this, as I do run upon this misguided mindset on occasion. If it's not true in your case, then so be it, everything else I said still stands (along with everyone else so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - the BBC and Rolling Stone sources above are enough for this to meet WP:GNG and this charted across the world besides. Deletion is not necessary imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The sources listed above are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Per others, it does seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maple Leaf (album)

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

Not demonstrate the significance of the album. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Valery Leontiev as is the usual procedure for a non-notable album by a notable musician. At least in English, I can find no pro reviews or any other commentary about the album beyond social media and self-published sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Do Not Forget Me

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

Not demonstrate the significance of the song. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev. --Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Valery Leontiev. Note that the article has a link to the WP Russia article about the parent album, which itself is nearly blank and totally unreferenced. If someone happen's to search for the title, they can be sent to the singer's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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. asilvering (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

List of songs that retell a work of literature

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

While this is impressively referenced, it has major problems. First of all is the scope - what is "retelling"? This term is not linked, nor defined. Effectively this is a very broad "list of song that have some connection to the literary work of fiction". The list is grossly incomplete when we consider religious works - it includes only a dozen or so songs that mention Bible, but I am sure we could find tens of thousands, plus more for Koran, Buddhist texts, etc. And then we come to the elephant in the room, which is the ORish nature of this (i.e. failure of WP:NLIST - is there a similar list in a RS? I don't see much, although I noticed this listicle from The Guardian in the sources: [9]). Note that it uses the term inspired (so.... "list of songs inspired by works of literature"?). Again, the super broad criteria is a problem. Is this about retelling, or being inspired, or what? Is any song that mentions a literary work or character to be included? This is just a gigantic list of trivia, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: but rename (discuss move on TP). Sources about the set include https://www.radiox.co.uk/features/x-lists/books-that-inspired-musicians/ https://www.kerrang.com/the-17-greatest-songs-based-on-books https://classicsdujour.com/top-10-rock-songs-inspired-by-literature/ etc maybe split albums/songs....(also can be discussed on Tp) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion what the title should be? TompaDompa (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  List of albums based on literary works/List of songs based on literary works? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  That sounds like it could get very inclusive, possibly too broad per WP:SALAT. What WP:LISTCRITERIA did you have in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  If you add a notice or hatnote such as "only add songs/albums if you can provide a reliable source indicating their conception was based on a given literary work", that might be OK. The current page is not bad but should be trimmed: no sources=remove; myths with no associated given work (Icarus)=remove, and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  Hm. Looking at the current version, I spot two unsourced entries and fifteen entries with an empty "Author" field (which should correlate fairly well with "myths with no associated given work", as you put it). One would have to look closer at the sources and so on to be able to say for sure, but this suggests that there might not be very much content that should be trimmed by those criteria. At least, it's not obvious that such cleanup would result in a significant reduction in the number of entries. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  I did put some effort into finding citable sources for most of those shown several years ago. There may be a few entries that have been subsequently added by others that did not have citations added with them; I agree that those should be cited or removed. Some of the examples of those purged from the main page after not being able to find citations (after at least a cursory look) can be found here. KConWiki (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
So two sources use the term "inspiration" (one "books that inspired musicians" and second, "songs inspired by literature") whereas the other is about "songs based on books". Ok, books and literature are the same, but inspiring and being based on are not necessarily the same concepts. One can be inspired by topic X and create work not relevant to it. That said, the lists seem to be about the same topic, and if their existence is good enough, so be it - although they do look somewhat listiclish to me. Also, this is about literature - are also going to have lists of songs inspired (based on?) by anime ([10]), video games ([11], [12]), films (oh wait List of songs based on a film...), comics ([13], [14])... This is fun, but still seems rather trivial to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: While I concur with the notion that there are numerous examples of literature-based music omitted from this list (particularly those connected to religious texts, as noted above) I think that the WP users interested in either literature or (popular) music or both could find interest in a list such as this. I certainly agree that the elements of the list must be well-cited. I will also say that if we wanted to rename the article or re-word some of the (brief) descriptive text at the opening, that there could be some merit to that. Let's discuss further as appropriate, and thanks to all for their contributions to WP. KConWiki (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep but retitle - I'm undecided on a viable title but that could be decided by the community in a separate move discussion. For the article itself, I appreciate the nominator's concerns but here we have references to serious analysis by reliable authors (some of the references, at least) who have studied how classic books inspired musicians. Meanwhile the list mixes up liteature, books, and mythology in some places but I consider that more of a cleanup issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Since current comments lean on keeping, I've started a renaming discussion on talk: Talk:List_of_songs_that_retell_a_work_of_literature#Name. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs based on a film, where right now comments lean on deleting (the quality of that list is much worse than of the one discussed here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you; can we therefore consider this implies you are withdrawing this nomination? (and FWIW, I've started improving the list you mention). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (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.

Now Autumn 2008

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

An IP address recently tried to redirect this, and was reverted. A notability tag is on the article. A WP:BEFORE search proved fruitless. An AfD discussion needs to be had. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
No sources, Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Australia sometimes the IP address is right DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:DanTheMusicMan2 can you provide a link to the target article you are suggesting? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).

Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: here's are the reasons!

Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com

WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

San Andreas: The Original Mixtape

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

Both of the references in the article are dead links, and the most significant coverage I was able to find is in an article by Pitchfork ([15]) which has some sentences about the mixtape. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions such as [16]. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Maylay. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Young Maylay per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM. मल्ल (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Scars to Prove It

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
C'mon, Babysharkboss2, you've participated in AFDs before. A Keep based on your first impressions of an article will be ignored by a closer. You need to be specific about sources (WHICH sources, too) and whether they establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: the albums WikiProject source list at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES#Christian music defers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources for judging source reliability in this topic area and I see in-depth significant coverage of this album from publications deemed reliable in that list: CCM Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout, and Louder Than the Music, in addition to The Review. Left guide (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Imago Amor

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez:, @Tuzapicabit: I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez: @Tuzapicabit: Are you able to provide updated feedback based on the policies now added? You asked for this, so I want to make sure you've seen it and had a chance to respond/refute. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. Given the policies quoted here, particularly WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRIT, I believe there is a strong case to be made that these lists do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User:The Sharpest Lives/central

Contents

GA nominations

Albums

Songs

Other music articles

Other music articles reassessments

Deletion candidates

Static/Crash

2 Hands (song)

Heat Melts Cube

Grooving to the Moscow Beat

Make Trade Fair (album)

Plan of Action

Tooth & Nail Records discography

Glen Campbell Plays 12 String Guitar

From Me to You (Crunchy Black album)

List of songs based on a film

Celestial (Ed Sheeran song)

Maple Leaf (album)

Do Not Forget Me

List of songs that retell a work of literature

Now Autumn 2008

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

San Andreas: The Original Mixtape

Scars to Prove It

Imago Amor

Back to the Real

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography