Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust It (album)

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 keep. JForget 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust It (album)

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

)

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

• Delete Per
  talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator really should read
  WP:BEFORE and stop wasting our time with these nominations. The album has received plenty of coverage, with an Allmusic review already linked in the article, plus BBC, ResidentAdvisor, Music Week, and this.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Michig. Article certainly could use expansion, but not deletion.  Gongshow ^Talk 09:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm with Michig and Gongshow. There is a difference between "non-notable" and "needs expansion." Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets
  WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 5 December 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.