Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssa2

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssa2

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

This article only cites one source, which is a store (iTunes). This is a violation of WP:ALBUMAVOID. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found and added ten English language citations, and feel this article can be expanded further with Korean language citations, which will take more time to add. Although the controversy surrounding this particular 2nd album of Psy's placed it in lots of media attention, I think more about the lyrics and development of the songs would be insightful. Some of the articles talk about Psy's contributions as a social critic and he is not seen as a "one-hit-wonder". I think the development of his history and musical style should include these first controversial albums he put out, even if they remain as stubs that will be further developed someday, as they tell the complete story of this complex artist and imperfect man who eventually succeeded with "Gangnam Style".--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recent addition of sources demonstrate article passes, slightly, GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepgiven the expansion of the article and addition of sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (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.