Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis the Wild Bull


 * 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. From what I see, consensus indicates that the article is notable because of significant coverage from reliable sources. My own investigation corroborates this. (non-admin closure) ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dennis the Wild Bull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dennis Rodman clearly is notable. His children's book isn't. The article is not an appropriate summary of the given references, which agree that there is very little information on the book, and instead of calling it "most anticipated children's book of 2012" rather mercilessly mock Rodman for writing it. So in summary: Not a notable topic, spammy article that's factually wrong. Huon (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Though this one is making my inclusionist tendencies cringe, but there is no way I would ever consider working on this article (or have students do so). Not ever. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG - 'has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' (don't have to be positive of the subject) and WP:BK - '1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself'  Here are some refs: ; ; ; ;


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:, , , , , , . N ORTH A MERICA 1000 07:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Coolabahapple and Northamerica1000. There's enough coverage of this books release to warrant keeping the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (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.