Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination)

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) Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

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

Last AFD had a keep consensus for references simply saying it was going to come out. The book has now been released and there is no significant coverage at all. –Chase (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep - see below. –Chase (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lady Gaga article and redirect this to the main article Wandering Courier (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book has not had any significant coverage to garner notability. Crystal Clear x3 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An LA Times blog on it coming out. That's not enough to establish notability. I also don't see any compelling reason to merge this to the Lady Gaga article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to additonal reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - What's there to say? Non-essential article, non-notable book.Ga Be 19 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Merge to Lady Gaga, section: Further Reading. Doesnot deserve own article space. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Per the good work of Cirt, I change my two cents to Keep. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Can you explain why we would want to merge a biography about her into her article? -- Whpq (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved. Added a Reception subsection. Added a bunch of sources with commentary on the book. Will also add an infobox. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considerable article now. Much improved. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Not sure what it was before, but as of now, its certainly a credible article with sufficient sourcing to prove notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the good work done by Cirt. The works used to source the 'Reception' section alone satisfies criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK. J04n(talk page) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems now to have been sufficiently improved past the concerns of nominator to pass our notability requirements. __meco (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I highly doubt much of the Contents section as necessary as much of that information is at/can be added to the Lady Gaga article, but other that, the references added by Cirt during the expansion definitely make me change my mind on the notability of the subject. Good work! –Chase (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure which notability guidelines to cite. It contains independent commentary on the biography that wouldn't merge well with Lady Gaga article.FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2010 (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.