This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toMusic. 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|Music|~~~~}} 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 Music. 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:
I redirected this toFugazi Live Series as this is a series of downloads made available by the band (the source given for all of these is the record company owned by the band, not an independent site). The band is very notable, the physical releases of the Live Series are presumably notable, but this discography (basically a list of nearly all their concerts: the complete page would apparently list 898 available downloads!) is not a notable subtopic.Fram (talk)14:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think it is a notable subtopic, since it is interesting and other people may find it so. Many other pages have subtopics very similar to this, such as Dischord Records having a subtopic that's solely their discography. How is this any different?Jbiafra4prez (talk)15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hello guys I am so sorry - this is my personal Wikipedia page, and I don't know if I fit the notable standard for Wikipedia. Like how can I be considered as notable I am trying my best but I cannot. Please as much as I do I am now trying to avoid vandalism and It is my personal dream to have my own Wikipedia page, but as of now it is best if my page will be deleted, but soon if I am notable enough please keep it 🥺User:Goodnight and go— Precedingundated comment added09:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2016 and again in 2022 and was subsequently deleted. Years later there 'is' new information, but it continues to be speculative and rumor-based with no actual plans announced to hold the event. Starting a new discussion since the new information makes this less straightforward than a recreation of a deleted article. Rational is the same however: delete perWP:CRYSTALBALL.Grk1011 (talk)16:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isWP:OKFORK, the relevant guideline here isMOS:DISCOGRAPHY which states,Musicians who have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles. The article on Rossa saysShe is one of Indonesia's Best-Selling Indonesian Artist of All Time based on album sales, with over twelve million copies sold in the region until 2023.Kelob2678 (talk)15:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The main article is already tagged with a few maintenance tags with the motive of making the article more in line with Wiki standards.Zalaraz (talk)11:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rossa is eligible for a discography article per the standards atthe Discographies Project, and this one simply needs to be cleaned up with better formatting and additional sources. Such sources should be available in her native tongue if we can get some assistance from editors who are familiar with Indonesian music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)15:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the above, but also perWP:TNT; paragraph 2, starting with "Her Malam Keajaiban ..." is a disaster. If not AI, why AI shaped?Bearian (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC) The third paragraph "Rossa continued to break records..." is a monstrosity.Bearian (talk)07:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Do you have the same concerns about otherLux Style Awards articles, and is this to gauge a bulk nom for the other ceremonies? I will say the Ctrl+C copying of the one source, including the 'roped in' line definitely isn't proper.Nathannah •📮22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Support a move to add an (album) dab. Holding on on an AFD !vote for now, as the articles says the album charted (which would passWP:NALBUM), but I'm unable to find any reference to it in aWP:Before on acharts.co – someone with access to the Billboard archives might have better luck that me though.Nil🥝01:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment - the article currently states that it charted on theBillboard 200, sold over 200,000 copies, and has one dedicated review present. While none of this alone is enough for a keep rationale (yet), those are all goodindicators that more coverage may be out there. And the fact that a film with the same name has an article has zero bearing on whether we should delete this article. If the film is truly theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we can simply rename the articles accordingly.Sergecross73msg me01:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability + mostly primary sourcing. Uncertain whether MusicRadar is considered reliable but a single lengthy review from a source with unknown reputation is not enough.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)03:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article failsWP:NSONG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The current references provide only trivial mentions, failingWP:SIGCOV. A previous PROD was removed by the creator without resolving these notability issues.ACROM12[TALK]11:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. It charted onBillboard, is from a well-known artist with an extensive history, all of their other albums (except their newest) already has articles for consistency purposes, and features (admittedly only a few) notable outside musicians. The sources obviously could be improved, but that's about it.Xanarki (talk)01:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard album article, album is from a major group and why it does fail NALBUM should not be left to the voter to decide as the nominator does not make clear a rationale outside 'simply put' (same with the PROD, rightfully declined due to lack of elaboration).Nathannah •📮22:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you explain why it doesn't pass NSONG, and whatWP:BEFORE was conducted before nominating? Article definitely needs work, but being covered by (at least) four other notable artists counts towardsWP:NSONG #3. I note that it's also been used as the theme song of both a 1983 film, andthreedifferentTV shows, so the question should be whether enough SIGCOV exists to establish notability. I'm not familiar with Filipino sources (so will withhold my !vote), but I'd be surprised if there was nothing.Nil🥝00:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination does not specify the problem. What's wrong with the references? Have you tried mergers? Have you tried looking for other sources? In the alternative, at least a redirect should be considered.Bearian (talk)15:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lenticel, how does it notable if there's lack of coverage about this song that only focus only to the cover version? The sources just focus only to the cover songs instead toLeah Navarro? Although, theref10 this is the interview of Leah Navarro, it dosen't help thecoverage about the original song.ROY is WARTalk!07:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original song was recorded in 1979. The internet did not come to the Philippines until the 1990s. The fact that this is still be remade by singers in the 21st century more than passesWP:NSONG, aWP:SNG meant to replaceWP:GNG on specific cases. I can't understand how hard this is for it to be understood.Howard the Duck (talk)10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several drama boards for this if you want to... you'd really have to justify how that statement is a "personal attack". Not a "ILIKEIT" vote; this song literally is "a classic OPM hit across 4 decades" (undisputable), making this "certainly more notable than the Bini songs". If that's a personal attack, where's the Kobe Bryant soft GIF?Howard the Duck (talk)10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theclassic OPM hit across 4 decades, doesn't justify notability just because it's a hit. In Wikipedia, the basis here is if the song is notable perWP:GNG orWP:NSONG andWP:NALBUM. Bini songs are off-topic here and if it's fall underWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (This is similar comment on bullet one*::::Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)). Comparing to other songs doesn't justify the notability of the article. If you have to argue, please stick to the references if you have found it. Also your comment:where's the Kobe Bryant soft GIF? please keep yourprorfessionalism here. (See:PILLARS or5P4).ROY is WARTalk!11:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, if a song "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" then it passesWP:NSONG. This is not just as a recording, but at least one those recordings were bona fide singles. This is something that has been wholeheartedly ignored by the proponent. FWIW, even on that sole criterion, this should be an easy keep viaWP:SNG.Howard the Duck (talk)11:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a personal attack or not, bringing up the content someone edits on Wikipedia on a discussion for something completely unrelated to said topic as a rationale is uncalled for and immature. Also,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I also hope you know that NSONG says "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful", not that a song meeting a specific criteria automatically is notable, and the NMUSIC page iterates multiple times sources that discuss the subject are still required.λNegativeMP117:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NSONG requires that sources still exist for a song or album which cover it in detail, regardless of its charting or certifications or whatever, and arguments otherwise are misconceptions. It clearly states that a song meeting a specific criteriamight mean its notable, as in a source search may bring more results. And, even if it did somehow make it meet the SNG clearly, GNG still states "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia".WP:SIGCOV is still required. As the article at present, I am not seeing such. Yes, the deletion rationale here could have been more thorough, but I don't see that as a reason in of itself to keep a seemingly non-notable subject.λNegativeMP117:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. PR for winners is not independent reliable coverage.duffbeerforme (talk)09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gnews brings up hundreds of mentions of people winning these awards, from the US and Canada. That would imply the award is well-known, not some "pay to play award" we see here being brought up. Sources are too many to mention, but this seems notable based on the volume of coverage in RS.Oaktree b (talk)15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles, like the first hit[2], that are individual local wins an award are basically just PR for that individual and not independent coverage about the awards in general.duffbeerforme (talk)04:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails to meetWP:GNG andWP:NCORP, as there is a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The available references consist almost entirely of press releases, user-generated content, or routine "hometown hero" pieces in local mediaWP:ROUTINE, which focus on individual nominees rather than providing in-depth analysis of the award organization itself. Credible music industry coverage (e.g., Billboard, Rolling Stone) is absent, and the rental of a prestigious venue is a commercial transaction that does not confer notability on the renter. Without evidence of genuine influence or legacy within the industry, the article serves primarily asWP:PROMO for a pay-to-play vanity enterprise rather than describing a notable cultural institution.ChairsAreFlying! (talk)17:41, 10 December 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]
The album did not appear on the main Billboard 200 during MJ’s 2009 posthumous sales surge. It eventually charted in 2012, nearly three years after his death, and later appeared on the Canadian Albums Chart in 2022—more than 13 years after his passing--TheWikiholic (talk)13:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The subject has charted on national charts in at least two countries and received coverage from multiple publications. The album has also sold over a million pure units, making it eligible for Platinum certification in the US. Hence, it meetsWP:NALBUM.TheWikiholic (talk)13:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NALBUM,a recording may be considered notable if it has appeared on a national music chart in any country. Additionally, the album has been reviewed/rated by three publications, that is sufficient to meet the WP:NALBUMTheWikiholic (talk)14:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone is a magazine of recognized importance in the field of music, and having one's albums ranked by it is an achievement coveted by virtually any artist. Overall, the album was not noticed solely by Rolling Stone, as it also received attention from other specialized outlets. Among these, the review by AllMusic stands out, as well as the assessment by Tom Hull, whose writings, it should be noted, compile reviews he produced over the years for various notable newspapers and magazines, rather than a critique written specifically for his own website. As indicated by the sources cited in the article, the album did not go unnoticed either commercially or critically, since even when it was not the subject of extensive commentary, it was still awarded ratings and mentions that attest to its significance.Markus WikiEditor (talk)09:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a great many compilation albums, even of very notable artists, which did not chart and have no reviews that we have found. This one did chart and does have reviews. I support giving it the benefit of the doubt as to notability underWP:NALBUM. --Metropolitan90(talk)00:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: