Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose love

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 delete. Singularity 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rose love

Rose love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is on an upcoming album. There is one linked source, and my search of the lengthy .pdf failed to locate either the name of the album or the name of the artist (although there is an artist named "Monrose" and an album called "Ghetto Rose"). A google search of "Rose Love" and "Laila Richard Sadeq" came up with only Wikipedia and unacceptable sources. So the first issue with the article, in my opinion, is verifiability. However, even if there is a scheduled album by that name, I believe it fails the album notability guidelines because it lacks independent coverage and the artist herself may not be notable. I believe the article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nom says it all. Deiz talk 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom... and per the earlier shenanigans surrounding this. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hoaxy article to correspond with a non notable actress. James Luftan ^contribs 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The whole Laila business smells like a hoax. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's all a hoax. Corvus cornix 22:26, 10 August 2007 (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.