Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac & Cheese 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mac & Cheese 3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Three sources. All are trivial coverage of the topic. No WP:RSes involved and none can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep None can be found? Pitchfork, HipHopDX, XXL Magazine, Billboard, Rap Radar. I originally thought it was not notable also, but that is definitely enough and it was only like the first 4 pages of a Google search. Definitely needs these sources added to the article like I told the creator on the talk page.  STATic  message me!  21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. None can be found.
 * Is http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17466-mac-cheese-3/ notable?
 * http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.21844/title.french-montana-mac-cheese-3-mixtape-download-stream and http://www.xxlmag.com/xxl-magazine/2012/11/french-montanta-reveals-mac-cheese-3-tracklist/ are trivial coverage and http://rapradar.com/2012/11/20/new-mixtape-french-montana-mac-cheese-3/ is worse than trivial coverage.
 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/473932/french-montana-talks-mac-cheese-3-mixtape-readies-2013-debut is good.
 * Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the extensive review at http://www.allmusic.com/album/mac-cheese-vol-3-mw0002477020. There isn't one, crap. I thought I could support your point, but I can't. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pitchfork Media is definitely notable and XXL Magazine's coverage is not necessarily trivial, I am also sure I could find more if I would have took more than five minutes to look. Keep in mind if you check the page history I was originally in support of redirecting it but after seeing the coverage I changed my mind.  STATic   message me!  01:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your definition of trivial and mine are different in relation to XXL Magazine's coverage. They have two brief sentences, a large image and a track listing. That's trivial. Please do find more because in the five minutes that I took I only found trivial coverage. The existing coverage is, for the most port, not substantial and does not confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources above demonstrate that WP:NALBUMS is met. — sparklism hey! 09:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverages in reliable sources (Pitchfork and Billboard). Sources need to be reliable. Whether or not sources are notable is irrelevant. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Article meets WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Walter Görlitz's clever means of showing our reliable sources. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.