This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toAlbums and songs. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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:
Delete: I don't see any reviews of this album on the Finnish wiki (it seems to be the musician's website and a "where are they now" article). I can't find much of anything about this, article on English wiki is unsourced, so that doesn't help.Oaktree b (talk)01:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: It's not enough to just meet one of the criteria at NALBUM. It's a good argument for a standalone page (as opposed to just one on the band), but we still need basic sourcing in secondary materials in order to have an article. NALBBUM explicitly statesAll articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.4meter4 (talk)18:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual albums do meetWP:NALBUM andWP:GNG - I searched for, and found many, sources forDet bästa från Idol 2004. TheWP:BEFORE has to be done in something likeMediearkivet [sv]. The albums were obviously not discussed as a set in the first year of the series, with it being only one release thus far. I will add the sources from 2004, and if a further search doesn't turn up anything from the other years (which I find unlikely), the article can shift focus from the series to the notable albums through editorial measures. Even then, I would think it's best to keep them within the same article.Geschichte (talk)18:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual albums are notable, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have individual pages? If they are not discussed together in sources, why would be bundle them?4meter4 (talk)18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not be a question ofWP:SPLITTING if and when we have enough material? Even if all the albums had individual articles, the lemmaDet bästa från Idol would still be here, in that case as a disambiguation-type page. On another note, the writeup of the 2004 edition is now published.Geschichte (talk)18:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missed the point of what I am getting at. We've arbitrarily combined a bunch of albums that haven't been discussed as a group which isWP:SYNTH. Honestly, I think these albums might be better covered within the season articles ofIdol (Swedish TV series) from which they came (ie the album from season 1 should be discussed in the season 1 article). The albums themselves are more directly related to the individual seasons rather than to albums from different seasons. Best.4meter4 (talk)19:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you search to exclude the possibility that they are discussed as a group? Regarding the television seasons, the albums, which have or may have independent notability meetingWP:NALBUM andWP:GNG anyway, are connected to the record label more so than to the television channel that airs the show. The record label is responsible for the song selection, the backing track, the promotion etc., a role that was highlighted in several of the sources I went through.Geschichte (talk)04:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "Best Hits" is too generic to redirect for a specific band in my opinion. Album not significant on its own. If the decision is to redirect, the page should be renamed to Best Hits (band name) or something similar first so every search for "best hits" doesn't end up here.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)12:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to failWP:NSONG quite severely despite charting. Besides the one independent source currently in the article, I can find exactly one other independent and marginally reliable source that so much as mentions this song, which isthis SEO bait-y article fromDot Esports. Falls well short of the NSONG's requirement for "significant coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label".Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)07:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; actually created after the album series's deletion with an inexplicable 'it charted at this one time in 2012, meets N' rationale by the creator (for a sub-100 position on what would usually be a bubbling under position on other charts, so it was faulty judgement then!); its only N claim was from around Jackson's death when it charted on the catalog only because had 'everywhere including 7Eleven' availability in the market and was just the easiest/cheapest to find for your average music consumer in that exact period of time in 2009 and no other time.Nathannah •📮00:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated above, its only charting was based upon very unusual circumstances where it could be found everywhere, including even truck stops and supermarkets, rather than just Walmart and record stores. It's already mentioned as an aside (with other Jackson albums with large catalog distrubution) inDeath of Michael Jackson#Record sales, but is otherwise an average greatest hits album with no group involvement whatsoever.Nathannah •📮21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep underWP:I like and also this was a hige deal in the late 2000s! Ten Years of “Shoes,” the Story of the First Great Viral Music Video, Betch [[1]] Early YouTube Star Kelly Performs Viral Song “Shoes” For Pride in Los Angeles [[2]] Liam Kyle Sullivan — YouTuber Behind 'Shoes' and 'Muffins' Videos — Talks Early Success and What He's Up to Now (Exclusive) [[3]] I think if anything it should be merged withLiam Kyle SullivanAgnieszka653 (talk)22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the redirect's original creator, I don't care whether it is kept or not so long as it isn't fully deleted, the article certainly is a likely search term.mftpdanoops15:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Keep charting song with substantive article and many reviews. If this cannot be kept, it should be redirected or merge with history kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk)15:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Streaming totals and fan views, as conjectured by the previous commenter, do not matter for a notability discussion in which evidence ofreliable media coverage is needed, but some of that person's other sources indeed work in the song's favor. It charted and has received notice as a frequent soundtrack selection, and it also received some coverage as the only existing song from an album that was temporarily cancelled. However, info about the song is fairly thin and WP might be served just as well with a redirect to the album, hence my "Weak" vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)15:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references in this article. Searching online, there's one or two articles that mention the song with the same name, but no coverage of this EP. I don't think it meets the notability requirements ofWP:NALBUM. – numbermaniac13:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any existing reliable sources on this band that prove this subject's notability. The only existing information consists of the band's song listings or otherwise trivial information (seeWP:MUSICBIO). —Alex26337(talk)09:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article on the band itself perWP:MUSICBIO#1 with bylined coverage available, and now added to the article since nomination:[5],[6],[7],[8]. Furthermore, covers of the band's first singleTired of Being Sorry achieved significantWP:GOODCHARTS success therefore there is likely a pass onWP:COMPOSER too. In my view there is no need for the album articles and these should be redirected to the band.ResonantDistortion10:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has sources that failWP:SIGCOV, thus making the subject not notable. When I try to search for the subject in Google News or on Google in general, the independent, reliable sources that come up mention the song in passing. I think it needs to be redirected to the albumSingle Collection+ Nikopachi again, as the album is notable and has more significant coverage.Z. Patterson (talk)01:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of reliable sources is something that could be improved, but asking for deletion for the article? I find it excessive and unnecessary. This is a relevant subject, as the other comment said, the song was a Top 10 hit in Japan and is one of the most popular songs of this artist. If we applied that criteria you mentioned (e.g. "as the album is notable and has more significant coverage"), let's delete 90 per cent of Wikipedia articles about songs we don't know then.クラウデド (talk)12:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve - Reaching a high position on the official Japanese chartmay make the song notable underWP:NSONG #1 (as stated in that guideline itself). The song appears to have some other factors working in its favor, such as being placed in a movie. Such tidbits can be reinforced with better sources, particularly from editors who know Japanese media. The nominator is correct that the article has some fan trivia with unreliable sources (particularly tweets) but those can be removed through standard editing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CD Journal actually has a mini review written, it is not a merely CD listing: "若手声優シンガーNo.1の彼女が、前作からわずか2ヵ月でニュー・シングルをリリース。タイトル曲は、本人も出演している劇場版アニメ『ラーゼフォン 多元変奏曲』の主題歌。儚げな歌声と菅野よう子のサウンド・プロダクションがベスト・マッチの全3曲。", and on NetLab, what do you mean by "without real prose"? did you actually go through the page? it is written there: "2003年にリリースされたシングルで、劇場版アニメ「ラーゼフォン 多元変奏曲」の主題歌。光がはじけるような明るさと郷愁を同時に感じられるメロディーが心地よく、歌の世界に没頭できる名曲です。コメント欄には「悩んだ末にtune the rainbowに一票」という声をいただきました。"クラウデド (talk)19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here's a news from Anime News Network about 10,000 people voting their Top 2000s Anime Songs With Female Vocalists, where "Tune the Rainbow" ranked 13th.Linkクラウデド (talk)20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the people voting to delete, please see the section of Legacy and impact, I tried my best to find and include reliable sources there for proving the song's relevance (Anime News Network, Polling sites Charapedia and NetLab, Crunchyroll).クラウデド (talk)13:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“tune the rainbow” is one of Sakamoto’s most significant singles, her first Top 10 single in Japan, the song is significant in the early 2000s anime music in Japan, as it was voted as one of the most important anime songs by a female vocalist of the 2000s (as per Charapedia, Anime News Network), and also voted as one of her most important songs (as per Netlab) in 2021, voted as her 2nd most important songs by fans on her 30th anniversary, as reported by Crunchyroll. The song has also been covered independently by other Japanese artists. Information on this single is scarce, as with lots of anime songs from the early 2000s, as reports published in Japanese media outlets like Seiyu Grand Prix, Animage, etc., unfortunately are not available online. However, I did my best to dig up all the info I could to make this relevant, and it’s seriously very difficult to understand how determined people are in deleting what could be an anchor of the little information available about this song. This could sent a precedent to delete hundreds of other articles about J-pop articles, not only from Maaya Sakamoto but from several other artists.クラウデド (talk)03:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
“Tune the Rainbow” by Maaya Sakamoto satisfies various criteria that makes its deletion completely unjustified, with independent notability beyond its association with the artist or the movie RahXephon. As Sakamoto’s 11th single, it was her first Top 10 hit on the Japanese charts and remained in the chart for nine weeks, demonstrating commercial success with sustained visibility over multiple weeks. The song is one of Sakamoto’s most popular songs, being voted first on a 2021 survey by Netlab (ITmedia’s research arm, a credible Japanese media analytics site), voted 2nd on the same website’s poll the following year, and also voted 2nd as fan favorite from approximately 250 songs, for Sakamoto’s 30th anniversary, as reported by Crunchyroll. Note that Netlab’s site about the poll results include actual detailed info written about “Tune the Rainbow” and its significance, they are not merely posting a list, as you can check if you read what’s written on the website. The song was also voted as one of the most popular anime songs by a female vocalist of the 2000s via Charapedia, in which 10,000 voters were involved (as reported by Anime News Network), which shows its cultural impact. Additionally, Japanese music magazine CD Journal wrote a mini review (ミニレビュー) on the single via their webpage, something they do not necessarily do for every single released in Japan, which serves to illustrate its notoriety. The Wikipedia article itself is well-sourced with 20+ references, including Oricon data, liner notes, and archived interviews (used sparingly for factual release info only). No circular sourcing or promo inflation is evident. Cover versions by artists like Chiaki Takahashi/Asami Imai (2008, on a compilation) and Maki (2015, trance remix) indicate broader reinterpretation, aligning with the factor: “Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists.”
At ~800 words with sections on background, composition, release/charting, covers, and legacy, the article is reasonably detailed—not a stub—and avoids bloat. Merging into Nikopachi’s page or discography would dilute this specific history, as the guideline notes: “a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.” Deletion would contradict precedent for similar J-pop/anime singles (e.g., those charting top-10 with media analysis).クラウデド (talk)17:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. I was not able to find any reliable sources about the album. A Sputnikmusic user review is not reliable, and Allmusic isn't a review, not even a star score.Geschichte (talk)07:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It did reach 2Billboard charts, problem is theBillboard website now has all of it's chart history behind a paywall, so it would be hard to source and the Allmusic website which used to display theBillboard charts back when the article was created, lost the rights to display theBillboard charts well over a decade ago.Beast from da East (talk)02:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm fine with redirecting, which makes us four. Regarding charts,WP:NALBUM only says that "a recordingmay be notable" if it for instance charted. Still, "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, withsignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine).Geschichte (talk)05:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the author of this enWiki article has falsified several references. This is worrying, and I've presented a selection of the issues I found below:
[9], which is used to support the linesThe lyrics portray an assertive romantic plea, repeating the line "Take me, I'm yours". Critics noted that it represents one of the album's lighter and more playful tracks does not actually support that text - the source mentions "Take Me" once, sayingAmerican singer-songwriter and drummer Anderson .Paak and legendary guitarist Nile Rodgers garnered attention by featuring in "Too Bad" and taking a guitar solo on "Take Me," respectively
Korean outlets such asKyunghyang Media andThe Electronic Times described “Take Me” as a key example of the album's nostalgic yet contemporary sound. is supported by refs[10][11] - but neither source actually discusses the track, they mention in in passing alongside a list of other album tracks.
Vogue Singapore described the song as "an ecstatic ride" [...]Vogue Singapore praised its lively rhythm and vibrant guitar section - cited to"G-Dragon's Übermensch is an artistic rebirth" - but the URL on that reference is broken and I can find no evidence that Vogue Singapore ever published an article by that name or produced that quote
[12] is a blog by a fan (not an RS), but, more troubling, the enWiki author claims that the blog said that Take One is "a song that captures G-Dragon’s confident charm". That quotedoes not appear in that blog post, and, indeed, this Wikipedia article is the only place were that phrase appears.
Keep the article have enough info to stand alone, I've seen many articles of songs with only info about song credits 5 sources maximum amd nobody trying to delete them, while the article about 'Take Me' has many info, keep and improve. Or keep same energy and delete tons of articles about songs that had 5 sources.KLIFE88 (talk)04:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t realize I had mixed some of the sources since I’ve been working on multiple pages. All the links open normally for me, so a note on the talk page would’ve been more helpful than going straight to deletion. I’ll definitely fix all the issues on the page. It would also be better to let other editors help improve the article rather than rush to delete it. As I mentioned before, I’ve seen many other song pages with just an introduction and barely any context or sources, unlike “Take Me,” which actually has plenty of information to justify keeping it.KLIFE88 (talk)13:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing more than just the incorrect link as an issue.The Bias List makes no mention of the quotea song that captures G-Dragon’s confident charm at all, and the "funk pop" note is from a comment on the article, not the article itself, and there's no mention of a "throwback" either.Kyunghyang Media andThe Electronic Times don't even describeTake Me in any detail besides listing it as one of the tracks. I am strongly leaning towardsdelete because the text of this article is not supported by its sources - it would be betterrewritten from the ground up. Not only that, butcharts do not make a song notable on its own, especially one like this that has not been released as a single and is not discussed outside of the album as a whole. --Reconrabbit15:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on the article on the next couple of days to improve it, no need for deletion at all, also you said "charts do not make a song notable on its own" so why other Korean acts pages with songs like this isn't up for deletion? Examples (Yes or No (Jung Kook song),Never Let Go (Jung Kook song),Please Don't Change,Closer to You (Jung Kook song),Snooze (Agust D song),Amygdala (song) (basically majority of BTS members song) + and many other pages related to Korean songs) I've notice only BIGBANG related pages always goes for deletion quickly rathen then fixing it, while others aren't, either ways if those pages can stand alone basically by charting then so should 'Take Me', and I'll be fixing all the issues in it.KLIFE88 (talk)17:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update, the entire article is fixed, feel free to review it, and if you intended to delete it then I expect as well for all other article of I mentioned to be deleted as well first, since they way less noticeable then "Take Me"KLIFE88 (talk)17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of their song pages are quite basic, with just a few sentences and chart info, so you can check their discography. For the article I'm working on, I'm trying to improve the articles by adding more details and context, and I take every note I receive seriously to make updates. I believe improving and expanding content is better than deleting it. I'd really appreciate feedbacks and suggestions so we can make the articles as complete and accurate as possible.KLIFE88 (talk)20:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: