Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Prince

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9th Prince

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

If you check most numbers, almost all have the same claims yet none have proven their notability through sources.... this one definitely not notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Killarmy. The group is certainly notable, and the solo activities of its members should be covered somewhere. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These album reviews and an interview in Village Voice seem to provide just enough in-depth coverage on this artist and his works to warrant an article; otherwise, merging would be my next favored solution as a member of a notable group and a plausible search term. Gong show 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:05, 23 March 2013 (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.