Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fru!

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fru![edit]

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

Not notable. Not referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no references to it at all Layla, the remover (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would suggest keep and merge with the artist's article, but there's hardly anything worth merging besides track listings. I find nearly nothing. Maybe that's because I'm searching in the Latin alphabet, and someone can come along to prove me wrong.

Also consider similar treatment for Na wylot and Polepione dźwięki. Both unsourced stubs that are little more than track listings. The latter claims to have been nominated for an award, and the artist's article claims it was nominated and won multiple, but all of this is currently unsourced. If information on the albums gets too cumbersome for the artist article, then the appropriate step would probably be a discography article, but that doesn't seem currently necessary, since they've only put out apparently two solo albums, and it's not clear how central a role they played in their collaborative works. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: even on the Polish version of the article, where presumably editors are more familiar and sources more plentiful, the citations boil down to discogs and hiphopapedia. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 28 December 2016 (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.