Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:

watch

Related deletion sorting

Albums and songs

That's the Way Love Ought to Be

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

I propose merging to Donnie Iris because this has been individually unsourced for 15 years, and while it is demonstrable that the song exists, nothing speaks to its individual notability. BD2412 T 19:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. BD2412 T 19:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to King Cool, the parent album, as is standard procedure for non-notable songs. Merging info on one single song to the musician's wider-ranging biography, as suggested by the nominator and previous voter, is not particularly encyclopedic. Nor does this song article have anything that could be merged, because all it really offers is an unsupported claim that the song is a "classic". At any rate, the song has some discussion among fans but nothing reliable about its own existence to support a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that as a merge target; I suppose there is nothing from the article that can be merged, though there is probably some content that can be found in sources to add a line about the song itself. BD2412 T 21:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Krummavísa

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

There isn't much sources on the internet and the only sources are the lyrics to this song. There are books about this song but each book has different lyrics. There are barely any sources talking about this song. SVcode(Talk) 18:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

oppose: A search on timarit.is reveals 178 Icelandic newspaper hits for "krummi krunkar úti" spanning 120 years. Note: there are lots of nursery rhymes in Icelandic about ravens, all "Krummavísa", (this one is the most famous) which explains the different lyrics comment. Given that, perhaps the article should be moved to the less ambiguous "Krummi krunkar úti". U003F^? 06:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- [I've now expanded the article with some cultural references and whatnot] U003F ^? 13:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Period (Another American Lie)

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 11:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 11:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Moment (Vierre Cloud song)

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

I am the original creator of this article, and I am honestly here because I am unsure whether or not the topic is notable or not. Thanks. splains (💬/📝) 01:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Narko (song)

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

I propose merging to Bog (album) because there is no WP:SIGCOV of the song itself, song did not receive awards or certifications, did not chart (from what I can tell), per WP:NALBUM. The song is talked about as one song among several on the album. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related AfD discussions. AaronNealLucas (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Dan za nas

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

Apart from being entirely unsourced for years, this article is clearly a redundant fork of Den za nas. A separate article for the Serbian-language edition of the album is not necessary, as the content can be covered in the same article. It is the same album with two language editions. I think it causes a weird situation in Wikidata too, because these two are separate items there. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge (selectively) to the Macedonian version at Den za nas. One of these two albums should be merged to the other, which brings up the question of which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since the singer was from Macedonia, I assume the version in that language was the original, and the Serbo-Croation version being discussed here was a later bonus for the international market. If so, expand the article for the Macedonian album with some minor facts about this other version, especially how it featured an extra song in English. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Found some sources about this. Provided translations below.
- Muzika24: Eight songs competed, all of which were recorded in Macedonian and appeared in Proeski's album, "Den za nas." Six songs from the final were recorded in Serbian and appeared in the Serbian version of the album, titled "Dan za nas."
- Expres.mk: Serbian language version
These sources confirm that "Den za nas" is the primary topic and that "Dan za nas" is simply the Serbian version of the album. I support merging. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Well done, that supports my vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Olha, se Você não Me Ama

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

I propose merging this article with Manoel Gomes per WP:NOTE. The first sources, , do not mention the music itself, only facts about the author's life. The last two sources, , are literally music videos published by the author himself. Questionadora ávida (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. Questionadora ávida (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Manoel Gomes#Singles – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
... why not merge? FaviFake (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Nothing against a selective merge. Svartner (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Real Friends (XO song)

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

The article is about a song by a relatively new artist which hasn't charted, nor nominated/won any awards, nor has it been covered/sampled by multiple notable artists. The vast majority of the sources are either about the release of the song or its accompanying EP, most read like industry press releases. The song has 52,767 listens on Spotify and 23,000 on YouTube with a live version on the latter with 523,000. All extra coverage I could find is about the song release. I suggest the article be merged into ~~the artist page (XO (group)~~ Fashionably Late (EP). UaMaol (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons:

EDIT: It appears accidentally missed the step of notifying the author which has been pointed out by numerous editors. I have since apologised to the author. Also, it appears I misunderstood the parameters of WP:NSONG, which is what my reasoning is based on. I have since scrutinised the sources of the main nomination, which are below, using WP:GNG as a guide. I also meant to suggest merger into the EP the song appears on, Fashionably Late (EP), not the artist page. UaMaol (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the articles meet GNG as they have several sources talking about the songs. Even if they are about the release of the song they still count for GNG. The sources also feature discussion of the song - e.g. this one has a whole paragraph talking about the song from the author's POV. Also, you should have notified the creator of these articles that you nominated these for AFD... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I had a look at every single source in "Real Friends" and I can conclude that the majority are merely passing references, and where they are not they are either press releases or do not provide any level of significance in terms of coverage. Two have zero mentions of the subject and a further two are primary sources. Multiple independent sources are generally expected per GNG, however there no set number as they generally vary in quality and depth of coverage. Stating there are "several sources" is meaningless without examining what the sources contain and how they are being used. GNG requires significant coverage, which isn't about article count but instead that the sources cover the topic directly and in depth, even if only for part of the source. Very few of the sources actually do this, and those that do use a lot of promotional language.

Below is my analysis of the sources found in the Real Friends article, for example:

RF = Real Friends (XO song), the subject

Does not mention the subject

"Introducing XO with their debut single, 'Lovesick'". Music Mafia UK. Retrieved 2 October 2025.

(MMUK) is about a different song and does not even mention RF. It is being used to cite the names of the singers in the /Background and release/ section.

"XO HAVE ARRIVED! Rising Girl Group Make Their Mark With Debut Single 'Lovesick'". CelebMix

(CB1) also about a different song and again does not mention the subject either. It is being used to cite the release of their debut single, which isn’t RF.

Passing references

"Fun-loving girl band XO are ready to lift our spirits". NME. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(NME1) This is a fantastic source about the band, but it mentions the song passively, only in that it was co-written by Charli XCX and the month it was released. SIGCOV of the band does not automatically give SIGCOV of the song.

"XO share details of their debut EP, Fashionably Late". The Line of Best Fit. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(TLBF) This is much more about the EP than RF. Where RF is mentioned, they are passing references, stating only it was a single from the EP.

"Meet XO, the next British girl group gunning for the big leagues". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 13 January 2026. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(RS) This a thorough source and probably provides significant coverage for the band, but not so much for the song. There is a single sentence talking about the song and then a small section later, a part of an interview discussing more about the Charli XCX connection than anything substantial about the song. There is no sustained conversation outside of this.

"XO — 'Fashionably Late': Pop's New Chaos Theory". Fame. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(Fame1) This is a passing reference in a single sentence saying only that the song exists and that it was co-written with Charli XCX, in noticeably short article about the EP.

Dee, Vee. "XO Arrive 'Fashionably Late'. And Right on Time". Fame. Retrieved 10 May 2026.

(Fame2) Again, a passing reference in one single sentence mentioning RF was co-written by Charli XCX and there is a live version of it in an article about the EP, as opposed to any kind of substantial review that would count for significant coverage.

"XO share fierce new single 'Real Friends', co-written by Charli XCX". NME. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(NME2) Despite RF being mentioned in the NME2 title, a sizeable portion of the article is devoted to Charli XCXs involvement as well as her collaboration with Lorde and her involvement in a new film. Beyond the announcement of the release of the song and identifying Charli XCXs involvement as a co-writer, there is little discussion on the technical aspects of the song, nor its reception, nor significance.

Promotional

"XO release their new single 'real Friends'". TotalNtertainent. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(TN) This is probably reliable; however, it is written in a highly promotional style and structured as a routine release announcement. Furthermore, the discussion of the song is very brief, and this reads much more like a promotion of the band than the actual song. Other than announcing the release and a brief description of the song, there is little editorial discussion.

"XO continue to push the parameters of pop on electrifying new single 'Real Friends' co-written by Charli XCX". CelebMix. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(CM2) This article does discuss the song, however much of it is promotional rather than analytical. This, like similar sources, is another routine news source, however it does provide some useful info. The introduction and conclusion are highly promotional in tone with little critical analysis. This could be good; however, the promotional nature does not help a huge deal.

Listings

"Real Friends - song and lyrics by XO". Spotify. Archived from the original on 11 April 2026. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(Spotify) is used here to provide non-contentious credits on the song, however as this is provided by the artist/label it is a primary source and does not determine notability.

"New Music Friday: Sam Fender, The Last Dinner Party, Leigh-Anne, Cat Burns and more". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

(OC) is used here to show the song was released on a certain day. It is a directory or listing entry that verifies the release happened but doesn’t provide any discussion on the song, therefore not demonstrating any significant coverage.

I could just as easily do this for all four but I don't see the point.

The source you just referenced here for Lovesick is a routine promotional release announcement. This is marketing copy: "classic lineage of world-class British girlbands", "contemporary, cutting-edge and completely inclusive twist", "unstoppable British energy of Spice Girls", "that new wave of all-choreo and all-conquering groups", "strive for something more imperfect and unapologetic in their firebrand of Pop". With regards to pinging the author, I apologise. It completely slipped my mind. I've not done an AfD in a number of years so I'm bound to miss a step I guess. I'm glad it's the only complaint, although it's a shame (and rather discouraging) that all three commenters had to highlight it... UaMaol (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep they have WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the group. As for supposedly not having any award nominations or wins, please see their awards here; they do. In addition, the amount of streams these songs have received on various streaming platforms is completely irrelevant to any notability guideline. Also, although unrequired, I find the fact I was not alerted to these articles being nominated for deletion as the creator of all 4 to be in bad faith and uncourteous. With that, the stale warnings placed onto my talk page and adding tags to several of my article creations, it's giving WP:WIKIHOUNDING. – Meena • 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

With regards to the sourcing, please see the reply to the first comment by DaniloDaysOfOurLives. I misunderstood the requirements of WP:NSONG, in that GNG is much more important, and this is addressed above. With regards to the awards, I was referring to the songs, not the artists. I apologise to you with regards to not alerting you. This is the one thing I forgot to do and I am sorry. However, with this said, you have not assumed good faith here. Assuming an editor has bad faith is bad faith in itself. I could easily assume you have malicious intent based on your behaviour prior to this AfD, namely removing maintenance tags without actually fixing the issue nor giving a reason, however that would be bad faith and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's more reasonable to assume you misunderstood my concerns. With regards to the stale warnings, as per my user page I do not use Wikipedia often, and when I return I look at my user contributions page for changes. I am not alone in doing this. It's common courtesy to notify a user that you have reverted their edits on their talk page with a warning of the reason if you viewed such as being disruptive. Accusing another editor of Wikihounding, however, is a serious matter. What is your evidence for this? WP:HA#NOT states normal and appropriate editing practices such as merely editing the same page as another user, or warning another user for disruption or incivility... are not harassment if done civilly and in good faith. It also says Unfounded accusations of harassment are a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Can you please present your evidence of Wikihounding? UaMaol (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. View count is irrelevant - with the several reliable, substantive independent sources which there appear to be, these articles would still meet WP:GNG even if the songs had 1 listen. Plus, next time please notify the creator that the articles have been nominated for AFD. Jishara (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misunderstood the requirements of WP:NSONG, in that GNG is much more important, and this is addressed above. With regards to the sourcing, please see the reply to the first comment by DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Yes, noted. I have already apologised to the user. It's a shame (and rather discouraging) than all three commenters had to point that out though... UaMaol (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: reopening afd per request on talk page for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to past commenters on AfD: DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Jishara, and Meena, who may wish to weigh in further here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, I think we could all do with refocusing our comments on content and notability here. UaMaol is surely aware at this point that they should have notified the article creator, but at the same time that does not mean that they are harassing anyone. People editing in good faith can have different opinions about things like notability, but please try to focus on the issues at hand here going forward! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! To reiterate for clarity, I am voting for Strong Keep: I find the sources present to be reliable, independent, and with substantive coverage, and there to be a sufficient number of them for this article to be merited. The content is also fine with no need for WP:TNT. Therefore, my opinion is a Strong Keep, both for the main subject of this AFD (Real Friends) and for the other three mentioned articles (Lovesick, Hotline, Candy). Thanks for the courtesy ping btw. Jishara (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
@Jishara: At least for the Real Friends article, can you please point out the sources which meet SIGCOV. From my own analysis of them only two do, TotalNtertainent and CelebMix, both of which are written like routine release announcements. I've tried to improve this article to the best of my ability, and fixed numerous verify issues, however a great number of the sources, whilst reliable, do not give any level of SIGCOV. Spotify and Offical Charts are primary sources, of the fame articles one gives a sentence and the other a half-sentence, The Line of Best Fit gives two half sentences, one NME article gives a half sentence and the other has four (two of which focus on Charlie XCX), Rolling Stone has one sentence along with a portion of an interview (primary source) where they talk about Charli XCX and not the song. WP:SIGCOV says that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I feel that the majority of the sources do not meet this. UaMaol (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Hey! I'd be happy to clarify. While I agree with you on TotalNtertainment, I do think it meets Notability due to NME (which passes WP:100WORDS) and CelebMix (which, while very positive, does appear to have substantial coverage of the song that isn't mentioned in any of the other news articles, including TotalNtertainment). I also believe the Rolling Stone article's opening chunk appears to tilt it slightly closer to secondary source per the WP:Interview under the "analyzing some aspect of the event" criteria. Therefore, while I understand your concerns, I'm sticking with a Keep vote. Jishara (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Alberta (blues)

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

Confusing mess that mashes two different songs together. Neither song seems to be notable on its own, as I found minimal sourcing on the Lead Belly song and only false positives on the Mary Wheeler song despite several recordings apparently existing. The sources are a personal blog, a lyric database, and a database that apparently contains a recording of the Mary Wheeler song.

The article has also been in CAT:NN since 2020. If there is an article to be made here, then WP:TNT is required. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment - It seems that most musicologists identify it as a variant of Corrine, Corrina. See e.g. Oster, Harry (1969). Living country blues. pp. 418–419.; Radano, Ronald M. Music and the Racial Imagination. p. 172.; Roud number 10030. Clapton got sued over this question in 2016. Internet Archive has Steamboatin' Days available to borrow and admittedly the coverage there is... inconclusive. It'd say it's notable, the question is whether it should be a merge/redirect to Corrine, Corrina or a distinct article. Jfire (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, per JFire's sources (and WP:GNG). A merger can be discussed on the TP.--~2026-35976-24 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Corrine, Corrina: per Jfire's findings. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: There are unreliable sources as the nominator suggested, however there are also strong sources as @Jfire noted that help establish notability. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep That many notable people sung the song, then the song is notable. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-george-harrison-collaborations-1970-album-1234866352/ and https://www.nme.com/news/music/bob-dylan-announces-new-box-set-including-1970-session-with-george-harrison-2842559 mention Bob Dylan had "Alberta – Take 2" and "Alberta – Take 5". His official website has the same lyrics as in the article. https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/alberta-1/ Eric Clapton sings a different sound by the same name, different lyrics, information about that at Corrine, Corrina, he just changing the name to Alberta, Alberta. Searching for the names of the notable singers listed and the lyrics, should clarify who did what. Some of the songs are on YouTube showing them singing it. Dream Focus 22:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Bob Gibson used these lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi91c8wOk6E also spoke about the song before singing it. Searching for "Doc Watson" "Alberta" I see it on YouTube, spotify, and lyrics sites with these lyrics. Dream Focus 22:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Still in Love (album)

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

I propose redirecting to Carrie Lucas because...

This can all apply to each of Lucas' individual album pages, but I thought I'd check my logic with this one first before moving on to the others. I'm not convinced this meets the requirements for its own page. Since the page's creation in 2011 the page has never evolved beyond a track listing and a tiny chart position table, so the page is mostly WP:PRIMARY. I've had a look online but couldn't find any useful sources to expand this. As such, I don't think this album (or tracks on it) demonstrates nobility, and the track list could easily just be included in Carrie Lucas' main page. Either a redirect or merge would be fine here. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Firstly, there is an AllMusic review, which is already cited in the article. Other reviews of this album include, in particular, "black" in "Billboard's Recommended LPs", Billboard, 10 July 1982, p 65; "Black Contemporary" in "Reviews", Cash Box, 10 July 1982, p 8; and Peter Reilly in "Disc and Tape Reviews", Stereo Review, November 1982, pp 108 & 110. In addition to the Billboard charts cited in the article, the album also appeared on the Cash Box charts. Lucas has a lot of coverage in music magazines, so the rest of her albums are likely to satisfy GNG as well. James500 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the previous voter on the existence of old hardcopy reviews, but except for Billboard I am unable to find the text from those reviews myself. (Probably because I do not have access to various databases.) If James500 can furnish some screen shots and/or text from those reviews, I would support a Keep vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
The album review in Stereo Review is 161 words long from start to finish. The album review in Cash Box is 78 words long. James500 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Album and song proposed deletions

for occasional archiving