Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.O.V.E (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. articles notability requests have been met, the article needs expansion and insertion of sources. Will tag for improvement. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L.O.V.E (album)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, completing for IP. IP's statement below. lifebaka++ 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability for albums. Contested redirect. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why this fails "notability for albums". Unless I'm missing something it looks like a major label release from a notable astist. Could you perhaps expand on why this article fails?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails the very first criteria, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 76.102.12.35 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to look again - you're wrong, as a little bit of simple Googling might have shown. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article may be missing sources, but the subject appears to meet all the qualifications for notability (established artist, multiple albums from established record labels)... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion, not deletion. Non-notability argument is misplaced. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the above comment. TopopMAC1 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP , But article needs to be set out better and more references placed in. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:50, 15 February 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.