This includes music awards, music by nation/people/region/country, music genres, music styles, music eras, musical theory, musical instruments, music techniques, music businesses and events, music compositions, performers, groups, composers, and other music people.
Leaning keep. In the span of a few minutes, I was able to find reviews from Pitchfork and Fact (UK magazine) ([1], [2]). And there are probably more reviews than that, might look later. toweli (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep but Clean Up - The article needs to be improved by adding sources and removing a lot of fancruft, but it received a few reliable reviews in Pitchfork (found by previous voter) and occasional hip-hop publications (e.g. [3]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Tagged with dubious notability for 9 years. I could not find enough reviews to justify an article for this album, only one. It's not really an ESG album, it was a collaborative album. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - in addition to what the nominator has said, I couldn't find any record of sales or awards that would meet WP:NALBUM. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Not notable, lacking significant coverage. The only info about the album that concretely exists is that it was announced for an April 8 release date, which didn't happen. Skyshiftertalk 12:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect - could probably be a redirect somewhere, but it's WP:TOOSOON as is right now. A quick check shows that all the sourcing is simply passing mentions in sources about Vultures 2. Sergecross73msg me 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to ¥$: no coverage primarily about this album. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd say wait for it to be cancelled, it's being worked on and it WAS announced, about a month ago from now we didn't even know if vultures 2 was happening yet here we are Cringe AG (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Just because it was announced, and even if it was confirmed, doesn't mean it should get an article (at least not yet). The subject has to be covered by multiple non-trivial sources, which realistically means at least a couple news articles dedicated almost entirely to talking about Vultures 3. So far the article only cites sources with passing mentions of the album, so it should be converted into a draft for now. WP:FUTUREALBUMSquidb4ll (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's very simple to WP:REDIRECT the article now, and restore it once it meets our notability standards. It's not enough to just be announced. You're suggesting doing it in the wrong order. We do t make it and wait for it to be notable. We remove it and only restore it if it becomes notable. Sergecross73msg me 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Song has no claim of notability. Notability tag has twice been removed without any expansion to the article. Not included on the group's discography page, with its only mention as part of the track listing for the soundtrack to Una aventura llamada Menudo, which at best is a redirect target. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't lie, I agree with Jeanette, the film was very popular from the Menudo fans back in the early 80s, so the fact you had to say Una Aventura Llamada Menudo page was "at best a redirect target", is insane. I vote keep. Bottleboy04 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)SOCKStarMississippi 01:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Note This AfD is for the song not the film. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Note The nominator's user page has been deleted. Furthermore, a person with a similar name put a notability tag on Menudo's Sube a mi Motora's song's article, and that user's page was also deleted. I think under those circumstances, we should close this nomination as a keep? Jeanette Tu me Amas baby I know you love me, baby! MartinLoser's page, 00:16, 13 August, 2024 (UTC)
@JeanetteMartin:, I’m confused why you mention the nom's lack of a user page. They are not blocked, being blocked doesn't remove your user page (usually), they simply do not want a user page. Mach61 08:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@JeanetteMartin there are no grounds for a procedural keep as no user page is required. Please also read WP:SIG and consider some adjustments to make communicating with you easier. StarMississippi 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect Non-notable song. No Sigcov. Whilst the film may be notable, notability is not inherited so this is irrelevant to this discussion. John B123 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The song has been the primary subject of multiple independent published works; the article itself already has three, and a quick Google search yields at least four more. As the primary concern here is notability, and the article's subject passes a WP:BEFORE check, it's not suitable for deletion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. What does the nominator have to say about these new sources brought up here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep as I am convinced the article could be improved by the additional sources found above that are from different outlets, although they are pretty repetitive in terms of content, and if it wasn't the band's first new song in five years, this song probably wouldn't be notable or very relevant. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
As much as I would love to see more article about My Chemical Romance, I don't believe that this one fits the bill for notability per WP:NSONG. While the song is indeed certified, none of the sources on the page (save for the ones concerning the certification itself) have the song as its primary subject, rather they are listicles concerning the album or the band's discography as a whole. Furthermore, a customary WP:BEFORE check nets the same conclusion (and as the author of a different article on The Black Parade, I can further attest to this, as I've naturally seen a lot of articles on the album's songs). Leafy46 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it didn't seem to automatically include them, here are references to the previous nominations:
Keep: the certifications and multiple high rankings among the band's songs are plenty for notability. The articles may not all be primarily about this song, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable in terms of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
And I think there's a difference between just getting a sentence thrown in a review and getting a whole dedicated section of a list article like this song has in multiple of the included sources. Those sections are primarily about this song, and I would think that counts for something. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NSONG, certifications "indicate only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", and "if the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created". There are a few sources which do speak about the song as part of the band's discography as a whole, however I don't know if those are sufficient to prove its notability. Leafy46 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Newtatoryd222 and Dan arndt: Pinging the AFC submitter and approver, to see another perspective Leafy46 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, after assessment I consider that there is enough independent secondary sources supplied to support its notability, in accordance with the requirements of WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I would disagree, simply because most of the secondary sources are rankings of the album, or of songs in the band's discography. The former are certainly not acceptable under WP:NSONG (and the fact it makes up the majority of the sources doesn't bode well), and thus that leaves four sources in the article from Billboard, Kerrang!, Loudwire, and Louder:
The Billboard article is probably the best claim to notability the song has, as it received a #3 ranking in the discography as a whole, but it deals almost entirely with the song's critical reception (with some small analysis of its lyrics).
The Kerrang! article sees a musician naming "Dead!" as their favorite MCR song, which is fairly trivial and is entirely reception-based.
The Loudwire article is a ranking of every MCR song, with Dead! receiving comparable, if not slightly less, coverage to the other songs; if this suggests the song is notable, then it should go that every song in MCR's discography is, which certainly is not the case.
Finally, the Louder article is another listicle which ranks the band's discography, and mostly focuses on the song's reception (with some comments on the composition).
The song is not the primary subject of any of these sources, and most of the sources say nothing about the song itself other than critics' opinions on it. I would be in support of a merge at this point, with a section on the article for The Black Parade being created that focuses on each song including this one. This is mostly because, aside from the reception section, there isn't much information about the song's background, composition, or lyrics, and I doubt more information is going to come out which would lead to this article holding up as a standalone entity. What do you think? Leafy46 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Leafy46 I guess we need to agree that we both disagree with each other's point of view. If you add the coverage about the songs, whether it is exclusively about the song or a section of a review which includes specific coverage about the song, together with certifications for the song I believe is sufficient to weigh the scales in favour of retaining the article. Dan arndt (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: Fair enough, you certainly do have quite a lot of expertise in AFC reviewing and this seems to boil down to a difference in interpreting the guidelines. I suppose my argument ultimately comes down to things like this current draft, Draft:House of Wolves (song). While certainly a more extreme example (and without the certifications you mentioned), I simply do not think that an article can subsist solely on album rankings and listicles, even if the song appears on them and critics give their reviews about it. What I mean to say is that, if I were to go back into this article and try to add more information to it, I'd probably find very few sources outside of its critical reception; on the other hand, it could adequately be summarized on the album page that "Songs like "Dead!" have consistently appeared in top positions on critical rankings of the band's discography" under a legacy section or the sorts. Leafy46 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Ameen's argument has a substance. We do have separate articles to avoid the article getting too long. If we delete this article, all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Various entries in the article have their own article as well making the content encyclopedic. Muneebll (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Muneebll, ...all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Not really. Various entries in the article have their own article... I don't see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Except for documentaries, most does. Documentaries also have sources given. In filmography sections, not every entry has article but we still mention them because the main subject is notable. Regardless of your superficial personal view, content of this article being encyclopedic has to be on Wikipedia, either in this article or main article. Muneebll (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Muneebll, Regardless of your superficial view WP:ADHOM. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not really, I don't see that...isn't a proper response either. WP:PPOVMuneebll (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Saqib: are you suggesting that the content in this page be merged selectively into the main one? That seems to be the most logical outcome. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)