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). No consensus to delete, issues with sourcing to be addressed on the article's talkpage. Skomorokh 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Love[edit]

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage; the only reference is the artist's MySpace page. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There used to be so many sources for the album, but many of them have disappeared. I am currently looking for more sources that make it notable. Today I've added at least six sources. If these sources also disappear and there's no longer any coverage of the album left, I agree that it should be deleted, but as for now, I still believe it's notable. LoveLaced (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of the sources you added were either unreliable (blogs and a fansite) or did not show notability (eBay/Amazon). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were there for a good reason. The blog was a fan perspective, probably worded wrong in the article. The fan site I posted cites every single one of it's sources, so it is a very reliable source. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just taking out what aren't generally considered reliable sources, you would've seen the ebay citation was to show that the singles are being sold over it. If you read the policy on reliable sources, it says that the sources are rarely reliable, not completely unreliable. And where is the wikipedia policy saying that amazon isn't reliable(considering how often amazon is cited for album covers under fair use)? A track listing and picture of the cover were sent to the website from the label so they could begin taking pre-orders. What's more reliable that that? It looks more like you're just out to delete this page because you want it gone, not because it's not notable. LoveLaced (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This discussion belongs more on the talk page of the article than here, so I'm going to move it there. In short, however, I am not "out to delete" the article. See you on the talk page.—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help We gotta keep this page. It's not like the album wasn't real. Blogs are important! We got album covers, the albums songs, album information. Paranoia x (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Paranoia x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It seems the misleading idea here is that it's not been officially released, yet apparently it's been released to the public and is therefore available in some places. You can watch some of the singles on youtube etc, so it's not like it's a hoax album it's quite real. So if the articles is changes to say that it's release but not officially released then it meets WP:MUSIC because the artists meets notability. Found a source which I think would be called reliable(not sure how reliable imdb is) although a little short on details it does connect the artist to the album. ChessCreator (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're misunderstanding the nomination. The album is not a hoax, however the album was not released to the public. It fails WP:MUSIC#Albums because, as an unreleased album, it did not receive much, if any, media coverage. Also, IMDb is not a reliable source—anyone can edit it (to be clear—I am not disputing most of what is said there, only that it cannot be used as a source and that it does not indicate notability). The singles were actually released, the album itself may or may not have been leaked—advance promo copies would be my guess—if you can find a reliable source showing that it was officially released, by all means add the information to the article; otherwise, it fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a great album that was never released due to a unfortunate cause. I honestly thought this was fefe's greatest album yet because we got to see more of fefe. It was dedicated to her mother which i find extremely inspirational. This page deserves to be left up because we as fefe's fans need to keep it to remember this great album. This would have been a great album if a certain label knew how to promote it. As of now fefe has probably grown more as a person but i know her heart would love to have this page up to show fans what great talent she has. People deserve to know the truth and not forget about this album; because even if this great album wasnt released it doesnt mean its not there. ~~Gil (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.52.91 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amazon does have a page dedicated to it, www.amazon.com/Sunday-Love-Fefe-Dobson/dp/B000AOF9RK. It has it listed as "will let us know if it is released", only we all know it won't be. Is this sufficient or did you need more sources to keep this posted? I'm going to try and work with you here, as now some people are resorting to sympathy, which not a bad thing but obviously not going to cut it in this case.--Jaga185 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Amazon listing can be used as a source but it does not impart notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:54, 7 April 2008 (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.