Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2

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 delete. NW (Talk) 05:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Princesses 2

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

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

Seemingly

non-notable compilation albums, lacking reliable, significant, and non-trivial coverage by my search. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant non-trivial coverage for either album. Gongshow ^⊕ 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. There's not even a note about who even releases these. For all we know, this is some kid burning these discs on their PC at home. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One search answers that question.
  talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Indeed. Allow me to insert foot into mouth... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for these
talk) 00:24, 3 October 2009 (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.