Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomwhacker


 * 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) '''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomwhacker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks to me like this is an advert for a corporate product, not an article for a musical intrument. Whilst the instrument this is an exampl of may be itself notable this brand name appears not to be. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. It's a mix of bad sources, original research and promotion. External links used are not independent reliable sources. It's still reads like an advert even after a good faithed attempt to rectify that problem. A search failed to found any indepth coverage as asked for by WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm a former elementary school music teacher, so I can speak to this from a position of experience. The article does indeed need a lot of work, but Boomwhackers are an extremely commonly used learning tool for elementary music educators.  There's a LOT of literature and resources available concerning their use in the classroom, and not just from the company itself.  They're common enough that the notation software, Finale, actually comes standard with a font pack corresponding to their colors. I'll see what I can add later, but given that a search for "Boomwhackers resources" returns 51,000 hits... PianoDan (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "There's a LOT of literature and resources available"". such as? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Colapeninsula added a few good references, I added a web link. I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but thousands of kids use these things every day - the topic is definitely notable. PianoDan (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Books has lots of hits (WP:BEFORE states that you should search Google Books before AfDing). Some are for books published by the corporation who sells boomwhackers but plenty aren't. Steve Greenberg's book in particular has lots of info on the history of the product. I added 3 books as refs; there's more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four million sold and many reliable sources, a no-brainer frankly. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted. The instrument is significant and widely used all over the world. MichiHenning (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:N, section WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 19:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - evidence exists that it is used extensively in music education. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (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.