Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Kid's Point of View

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 to delete. Most delete opinions were before some sources were added to the article (and the musicians article was improved) at which point there is disagreement over whether they are sufficient for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Kid's Point of View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod removed apparently because a Wikipedian is "...sick of stuff getting deleted because it is non-notable...". Recent debut album with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC from artist with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Ravenna1961 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability; misleading "professional review" links. JJL (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn album for musician whose page is prodded as of now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable. Alberon (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "...sick of stuff getting deleted because it is non-notable..." Well, gee whiz, I mean - yes - WP:N is just a guideline but it's a pretty important one to follow.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - Sources added, reliability questionable. Need further information to justify !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had no idea how few sources actually seem to review Gospel music. I have added two independent reviews to both the album and the artist. Both reviews are independent and are non-trivial which makes this now pass WP:MUSIC spryde | talk 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. The review links don't appear to be reliable sources by WP standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What makes them fail RS? Honest question in case I have to try to expand another music related article. Rolling stone doesn't seem to cover gospel, only niche publishers and websites. spryde | talk 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since multiple non-trivial independent sources have been added. 96T (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (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.