Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3


 * 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

since I stuffed up bundling this into Articles for deletion/Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2 I'm nominating it here. no notability shown for this compilation album. having a bunch of notable artists does not make a compilation notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. prod removed saying "This is a ridiculous delete IMHO - Kitsuné are a reputable label and the artists involved are, in most cases, noteworthy (as expected for a compilation album)." duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search didn't seem promising. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to weak keep per the added review. Still not great, but it's significant coverage in a reliable source per WP:N. Huon (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As argued on the page for the second in the series, notability of artists and record label, combined with popularity of release and proper classification warrant inclusion in the wikipedia project. Particularly in light of the pitchfork review someone drummed up to support article.Stevezimmy (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  T · C 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.