Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOVEWORLD

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOVEWORLD

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

An album which is not at all notable and with not even a single cite to demonstrate the notability. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 19:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced, which heavily implies zero notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems to be a case of WP:BEFORE. I've found reviews of the album from The A.V. Club, Pitchfork Media and Spin after a quick Google search, all of which are considered reliable sources, per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep I'd like to see sources, obviously, but this album by a notable band does seem to have received enough mainstream coverage to pass WP:NALBUM. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reviews in reliable sources is good enough to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Kokoro20. — sparklism ^hey! 12:33, 4 June 2015 (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.