It depends upon the type of explosion. It would be great to get articles for every notable R&B;/soul act, many of which are sorely lacking, and to get the ones on the notable ones up to a higher standard of coverage. But I would AfD, merge, and redirect overcoverage on any and all R&B;/soul artists or categories just like I'm doing now for pop articles. Case in point: "Do You Know Where You're Going To" can easily be mentioned at Mahogany, without the need to create sepertate articles. Even though it was a number one hit, there's not enough information avaiable to write a full-fledged article on the song, and a stub repeats information already mentioned in the article for the movie. There is, and has to be, a cut-off as far as what gets included here, and what doesn't: something like a full Stevie Wonder discography, with an article for every single he's ever recorded, is far beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. As I've said before, most singles aren't notable outside of the fact that they are singles. Why make three articles on three singles that made no impact on society, culture, or otherwise; when they could be just as easily mentioned in an article for the song?

If someone writes an article for every Supremes single, most of them are going to get merged or AfD'd. THe same goes for any and every other act. Not even all of Michael Jackson's singles are notable enough for albums of their own. 

This isn't a bias or jelousy thing; could you please remove personal feelings and such from this, and thing about the encyclopedia as a whole, its standards, its level of writing, its established precedents, and exactly why this is even an issue?