Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends4Ever

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends4Ever

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

Non-notable album. Search is unable to find reliable and independent sources. PROD was removed without comment Andy14and16 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Albums by notable artists are generally notable. -DJSasso (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is generally.
    talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • And with a couple reviews by major publications. In this case it is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this
  talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - An album is notable if the album has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the artist or publisher of the album. This independent album has never charted and has never been nominated for any award. There are no 3rd party reviews of the album. And, sorry, but the artist isn't notable either. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Exclaim! review listed in the article is one example of non-trivial coverage. However, that looks to be it, so delete unless something more is presented.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Album by blue linked artist with multiple (I've added a second) reviews cited. duffbeerforme (talk)
• Weak Keep This barely clears the relevant guidelines thanks to the additional source from duff above. Although my every instinct is screaming "this is not notable, this isn't even close," my every instinct would seem to be technically inaccurate. Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:53, 20 May 2010 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.