Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts}})

In this discussion, a consensus was found that, outside of very special circumstances, individual articles on album reissues probably don't make that much sense, even taking into account notability. However, as I mentioned, there are some special circumstances that were highlighted in the discussion; an example of this was OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017, where the material about the reissue is so abundant and in-depth that trying to properly summarize it on the original OK Computer article would've been next to impossible.

Unfortunately, The Black Parade/Living With Ghosts, the 10th anniversary reissue of The Black Parade, is not one of those album reissues to where I feel that a split is justified. All that happened with this reissue can be easily summarized by it's paragraph that is already present in Release and promotion section of the Black Parade article. Maybe a sentence or two could be added to summarize what kinds of demos and songs were completely cut yet are present here on "Living with Ghosts" (e.g. give a mention to songs like "Emily" and whatnot) but beyond that there's not much that gives this article much of a strong reason to exist, per WP:MERGEREASON. Furthermore, the anniversary reissues for several albums like The Black Parade, such as American Idiot, summarize its reissue in the main article rather than through a spinout, even if it has 4x the listening material to the original work.

But let's say that MERGEREASON and the linked discussion weren't enough, how does the reissue hold up to WP:NALBUM? There are a few things generally looked for by this policy: whether the album charted or received any certifications, if it is covered by several reliable, secondary sources in non-trivial/announcement fashion (i.e. meeting the general notability guidelines), or if it won any awards. However, none of these on their own would automatically make an album or musical work in general notable. The reissue charted in only four regions, and for a very short period of time, with no certifications. Only two reviews of the album were published: this [https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-black-parade-living-with-ghosts-mw0002969055 fairly in depth one by AllMusic], and then [https://web.archive.org/web/20160923183726/https://rocksound.tv/reviews/read/my-chemical-romance-the-black-parade-living-with-ghosts this one by Rock Sound]. Unfortunately, Rock Sound's review barely constitutes as a "review", and is just a few sentences long. No critical commentary is present here. And obviously, as an album reissue for a band that quite literally did not exist at the time it was published, it did not receive any awards. There is [https://web.archive.org/web/20160910133109/http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/it_doesnt_get_stuck_in_your_head_it_haunts_youwe_preview_mcrs_unreleased_bl this article] by the Alternative Press that could be fairly useful, but it's not necessarily a review and I would more or less rather use it as a source for production info behind The Black Parade, because obviously, the songs that were strapped during its production are relevant to that article.

With all of that being said, I firmly believe that this article does not stand its ground on its own and should probably be redirected to The Black Parade. And since this article's material has theoretically already been merged into the main album article, that is why I have chosen AFD as the venue for this discussion and not set up a merge proposal on the album talk pages. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I contributed to the Music Project discussion that was referenced at the beginning of this nomination, and I don't think a consensus was reached on how to handle the nascent craze for reissues of old albums that are poofed up to look like totally new items (or not). Instead we determined the need for some sort of new WP policy on the matter and I'm not sure if much happened after that. That is relevant here because this MCR reissue could be easily merged back to the original album under older definitions of "reissue", though it did make the charts under its own precise title in 2016, so maybe it doesn't fit that old definition. The ensuing discussion here is likely to include a lot of uncertainty. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The way that I thought the discussion ended was in a decent enough consensus that album reissues may not exactly need their own articles, new or old, even if notable. Either way, I believe I've made my case that the material here should likely just be merged into a paragraph or two in the main Black Parade article. Especially since it likely does not meet WP:GNG on its own due to the lack of critic reviews. If the discussion goes against that though, then I suppose it is what it is. λ NegativeMP1 18:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe that the album passes WP:NALBUM. There isn't a requirement of how many national charts an album needs to appear on, but being in the top 15 in the UK, Australia, and Scotland national charts seems notable. Additionally, while there are only a handful of reviews of the album, there are also several articles where the album's promotion is the subject due to its obscure promotion as MCRX, and the mass reaction in the rock music scene and notable rock musicians due to the speculation of a band reunion. While I may be biased as the article's creator, I believe the content is significant and notable per multiple criteria in NALBUM. Sekyaw (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:

:

{{clear}}

: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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.