Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grass Roots (Atban Klann album)

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 merge to Atban Klann. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Roots (Atban Klann album)

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

Deprodded because "sources exist", but the only sources that turn up on Google Books are passing mentions, false positives, or passing mentions. Delete or redirect to The Black Eyed Peas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If references are not found a merge into Atban Klann is not a bad idea. They pass WP:BAND (#6, and possibly #1 and #12). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first Google Books result is this article on the album from Billboard. --Michig (talk) 05:57, 5 October 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not sure if a Delete is appropriate yet. Given that they were signed to Eazy-E's label Ruthless Records in 1992, when the single was released, It wouldn't be hard to assume there was some music related print media coverage as a result of the label's support, even though the album wasn't released. Not finding it on the net might be an archiving problem do to the early date, and not a lack of coverage. Is this enough for a Keep? No, but given the connection to the very notable music group, I would suggest leaving prods that encourage music aficionados to hunt down those paper sources. Posibly even leaving the prod on the Black Eyed Peas biography page, next to listing of this album, as a citation needed prod. Otherwise, I support a merge. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:45, 18 October 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.