Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Albums and songs|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Albums and songs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Albums and songs

From Ashes

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

No references, seems to fail notability easily Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. jolielover♥talk 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by Blabbermouth.net and Metal.de: [1], [2]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a short review by Exclaim!: [3]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this also has one in Ox-Fanzine [4] Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Programmed to Consume

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

One reference, seems to fail notability as barely any other acceptable sources seem to exist Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 06:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abysmal Dawn: Quick WP:BEFORE, but didn't find any sources that would help it meet WP:NALBUM. Nil🥝 06:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to About.com review listed in the article, there are reviews by AllMusic, Blabbermouth.net and Metal.de: [5], [6], [7].
Keep - also Rock Hard (magazine) [8] (paywalled) and Ox-Fanzine [9] etc. I also added an offline one from Scream (cmagazine). Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Roberts (album)

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

No serious indication of notability in my WP:BEFORE search or the sources. Should probably redirect back to the artist given it is a self-titled album. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 04:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts: Falls short of WP:NALBUM – has minimal coverage, and didn't chart or receive certifications AFAICT. Support an {{R from album}} as an AtD. Nil🥝 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts - As a longtime metal history geek I can attest that this album often appears in listcicles of the worst album covers ever, but that is not the type of coverage needed here for notability. The AllMusic review (already cited) definitely helps but we need multiple perspectives and I can find nothing else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts. My quick BEFORE search didn't found sufficient references containing significant coverage about the topic for standalone article. So redirect as per WP:ATD. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

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

Does not meet the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, New Jersey, and New York. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated since I posted this but the source issues remain - single sources are counted multiple times (see numbers one and seven), at least two sources have no links or ways to access the content, and multiple sources are dead links (such as the NYT citation). Additionally, the critical reception section of the article is almost entirely long excepts of the positive statements in reviews. The whole article screams bias, though if someone wants to clean it up they should go ahead and do so. As it stands now it doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just go ahead and do so. Henchren (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was going off the sources, two of which are permanently dead links and at least two others are personal blogs. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of Meaning

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

Does not meet the WP notability criteria for albums. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first, fourth, ninth, and and eleventh sources all do not exist. The second and tenth sources are the same. If someone wants to clean up the article they can be my guest, but as things stand it seems that, considering those facts and the fact that the “Critical Reception” section is almost entirely long excerpts of exclusively positive sections of reviews I’m not seeing any justification for keeping this article as it stands. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Future for the Michel

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Didn't find any significant coverage. No obvious WP:ATD-R target since it's a collaboration between two artists. Mika1h (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Germany, and Ireland. Mika1h (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change (Lana Del Rey song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No notability outside of album reviews. The article is also poorly sourced, mostly relying on Facebook and Instagram links. Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is not kept, please restore the redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album) instead of deleting the page and article history altogether. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album): Fails WP:NSONG. Unregistered Biohazard! 15:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album): No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NSONG. मल्ल (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Be My Own Hell Because There Is a Devil Inside My Body

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Cited sources are unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I only found a Beats Per Minute (website) listicle with 127 words of coverage as well as this. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Dream Takes You

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

Entirely non-notable song. This may be a good article; it is nevertheless fancruft. Only question for me is where it shoule be redirected; I now think the film a better choice than the list of the srtiste's recordings. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand the concern. Obviously in the seven years since the article was first created, it can be improved/updated. That said, I don’t agree that this is “entirely non-notable” or mere “fancruft.”

Per WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources specifically about the song:

Billboard covered and critiqued the track upon release, discussing its radio prospects and the international Spanish-language version.
Soundtrack.net published a review that addresses “Where the Dream Takes You” directly within the album review, as did AllMusic
Filmtracks likewise discusses the song’s placement and function in the soundtrack.
It was nominated for Best Original Song Written Directly for a Film at the 2001 World Soundtrack Awards, a major industry distinction that goes well beyond routine coverage.

These are not trivial database entries but substantial third-party discussions. That demonstrates the subject meets notability standards for a standalone song article.

I agree the article should be improved and properly referenced with these sources, and I’m happy to work on that. But the sourcing shows that the song is not “entirely non-notable,” and therefore merits its own article rather than being redirected. Changedforbetter (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - There are definitely good sources here (Billboard most notably), but there is a lot of unreliable sources here as well. This definitely needs a GA Reassesment, but I still think it can work as an article if it were to be trimmed. If it were to be redirected, Atlantis: The Lost Empire (soundtrack) is a much better target. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Changedforbetter. Definitely needs a reassessment but there is WP:SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arroja la bomba

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

Following on from my recent expansion of the article about the song A Las Barricadas, I was hoping I'd be able to find more on this one, but I've come up dry. There's almost nothing about the song in English language sources, and very little in the Spanish and Catalan language sources that I could find. Mostly they just quote the lyrics and sometimes provide a little background context (i.e. that it was composed in 1932 by an Aragonese anarchist by the name "Aznar"). But there's very little to it.

Searching around for sources was made more difficult by the commonality of the phrase (as it means "throw the bomb"), as well as the fact that it shares a name with a book of Salvadora Medina Onrubia's collected works; but the sources on the song itself barely give it any coverage longer than a passing mention. As I've been unable to find significant coverage of this song in reliable sources, I'm nominating this article for deletion; as an alternative to deletion, I would also propose redirecting it to Songs of the Spanish Civil War and merging any relevant context into that list. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Politics, and Spain. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Songs of the Spanish Civil War sounds sensible. I had a look for sources and couldn't find anything in books to add to the existing couple of sentences. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that merge seems reasonable and uncontroversial. It's recommended to boldly try such a merge before going to deletion discussion (unless it's likely to be reverted, i.e., controversial). czar 14:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypartz

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no notability aside from a passing mention in a Pitchfork article. Should be redirected to Luci4. Unregistered Biohazard! 03:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Unregistered Biohazard! 03:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luci4.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Never Heard

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

All three songs mentioned here are the same song, This Is It (Michael Jackson song), and thus the DAB page should instead be a redirect to that page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Wasn't Born Yesterday, the Sa-Fire album that includes the only version of the song with this precise title, which will help someone who searches for it specifically. The blue link for the song at her album already sends the user to This Is It (Michael Jackson song) where we learn that Jackson's version changed the title many years later. At any rate, the nominator is correct about this DAB page being unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta! (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; I created the page months ago thinking it was notable because of the charts and certifications, turns out it's not. Unregistered Biohazard! 01:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Unregistered Biohazard! 01:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable song. Charting and the certifications aren't enough to establish notability if sources don't exist discussing the song, and there's not an WP:ATD here. λ NegativeMP1 01:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering both artists don't have a page, I guess there really isn't an ATD here. Unregistered Biohazard! 02:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the song charted per WP:NSONG. Given that two of the primary artists are international, I think it’s highly likely that sources with SIGCOV in Russian and Ukrainian exist and could easily be missed. Without a suitable ATD it’s best to keep this.4meter4 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charting does not establish notability on its own. It's just an indicator that a song might be notable if it charts, not that it is notable. Given that there's no WP:RS that talk about the song, it's safe to assume that it fails WP:NSONG. Unregistered Biohazard! 00:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, fails WP:NSONG. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In My Opinion

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

The article currently only has one citation that being a non-independent WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to the album's record label Armada Music. [10]

I searched Google News to see if there were any WP:INDEPENDENT, reliable sources that have significant coverage on the album (Note that Google Books and Scholar brought up nothing when I searched for this album). And all I found were a few sources, all of which mention the album in passing while the main focus is on Nilsen himself: [11] [12] [13] [14][15]

With the complete lack of WP:Independent reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV, article fails WP:NMG and does not warrant an article, so it should be deleted or redirected to Nilsen's page instead. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Norway. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ørjan Nilsen: Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM criteria. Nil🥝 06:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term is a bit ambiguous Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I'm surprised that it doesn't have a disam like (album), or that there's not a more notable subject with this name. In any case, {{R from album}} seems like a sensible AtD unless something else pops up. Nil🥝 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above Metallurgist (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Holland (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No notability on its own. Sricsi (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator argues that the subject is not notable. That is not supported by policy. WP:NSONGS establishes that a song is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Mary Jane Holland has been written about in multiple professional reviews of Artpop, which satisfies this test. Per WP:DEL, deletion is only appropriate when an article cannot be improved. Where sourcing exists, WP:PRESERVE requires improvement, not removal. Arguments about general importance or personal judgments fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are not valid grounds for deletion. It is also concerning that this nomination appears to be part of a pattern of repeatedly sending Lady Gaga–related articles to AfD. WP:OWN and WP:POINT make clear that attempting to dominate coverage of a single topic or to discourage contributions from others is not consistent with policy. Nominations should be made based on clear policy failures, not an editor’s personal desire to control which articles exist. On policy grounds, this article meets notability standards and should be kept. PopeLucifer (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This song has only been covered within album reviews. It has no chart placements and, aside from one tour, no live performances. All of the available information could easily be merged into the album article. There is no justification for creating a separate article for every single track in Gaga's catalogue. Sricsi (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sricsi A quick Google search shows an NME article about the track as well as a PopCrush article about the track. That was without effort, simply typing the track title into Google search. Again, you have a concerning history of attempting to dominate the content on the encyclopedia regarding this artist. Do you care to explain why you repeatedly nominate Lady Gaga articles written by novice editors? Perhaps it would be appropriate to trust the reviewer at AfC (BD2412) who approved the article, and follow the guidelines set by WP:PRESERVE & WP:DEL. To expand upon and aid in the strengthening of articles that are sourced properly, rather than just lazily nominate them in violation of WP:OWN & WP:POINT. PopeLucifer (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt from NME (already cited in the song's article, by the way, which I’m sure you carefully read) states: "Lady Gaga has previewed new song ‘Mary Jane Holland’, taken from her forthcoming album ‘ARTPOP’. The pop star will release her third album in November, and ‘Mary Jane Holland’ is the latest song to be previewed ahead of the release. Lyrics in the song include the line, ‘I think we’d have a good time if you meet me and Mary Jane in Holland tonight.’"

I would hardly consider this an in-depth analysis of the track. Simply reporting on releasing a snippet of a song in relation to the album's promotional rollout does not automatically establish notability.

As for the suggestion that I have some kind of agenda, or "personal desire" (LOL) to control which articles exist, that is ridiculous and unfounded. A quick look at my edit history shows that I've consistently focused on improving and expanding Lady Gaga's articles. When I nominate a song for deletion, it is solely because it does not meet notability guidelines. Out of the 10+ articles created on songs from her latest album Mayhem, I nominated only one for deletion (LoveDrug), which other editors also agreed did not meet notability and was therefore deleted. Do you care to explain why you jump into assuming bad faith instead of carefully reading the guidelines? Sricsi (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sricsi Listen, I don’t know the slightest thing about Lady Gaga. I know she sang Poker Face and that’s about it. Good luck with your nomination. PopeLucifer (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artpop. Not an independently notable song. λ NegativeMP1 16:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. The collective coverage available for the song paints a rather substantial picture of its development and significance. BD2412 T 17:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect : to Artpop Kirtap92 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Artpop. There aren't enough reviews of this individual song outside of the context of the larger album to pass WP:NSONG. The coverage here is mainly focused on the album as a whole, and our coverage should reflect that.4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion will allow a consensus to establish whether article should be kept, redirected or merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artpop, As I understand it the general interpretation of WP:NSONG is that if a song has only been reviewed as part of an album review it should be covered at the article on that album. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion divided between those arguing to Keep and others who would prefer a Redirect outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving