Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Bösendorfer (piano)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Bösendorfer (piano)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

– The article is nothing else than promotion, it does not cite any references or sources, and it got lists that only can be for promotional reasons. – The template for speedy deletion has been removed by a user without he made any comments on the discussion page and without he made any changes in the article. The article is all the same, and it has not changed at all apart from the templates. This removing of the speedy deletion template is against what the template says (See Template:Db-g11). – The non-promotional information in the article is already in the article Bösendorfer, so there is absolutely no need for this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't have the necessary musical background to accurately assess the reliability or otherwise of sources here. But my understanding is that individual Bosendorfer models, particularly top-end ones such as the Imperial, are the musical equivalent of prestige cars and could theoretically found an article on similar terms to the Porsche RS Spyder.  Tori Amos' love for (and advocation of) individual Bosendorfer brands is certainly a matter of public record (she does a regular bit in her sets called "Tori and Bo" where she does acoustic numbers on the piano) and that'd probably be the first place to go looking for both notability and sourcing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment just above – I agree that Wikipedia could have an article about the Bösendorfer piano Imperial and articles about other piano brand's models. The problem here is that the article created back in 2007 is of a poor standard and has not changed much since the creation in 2007. Fanoftheworld (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we're in agreement that Wikipedia COULD have an article on this topic, how about just pruning the article back to a non-controversial stub and withdrawing the deletion nomination? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment just above – Because the non-promotional, and some of the promotional, information in the article is already in the Bösendorfer article, so there is no reason for having this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep. DustFormsWords is absolutely correct in his statement that the Imperial Bösendorfer is separate and distinct from smaller grands of the same manufacturer, (including the nine additional keys which are unique in any piano brand), and thus deserves its own page. The article does need better sourcing, and I will work on getting that added.THD3 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment just above – Ones again, the problem about the article is not the subject "Imperial Bösendorfer piano". The problem is that the article is of an extremely poor quality! It has 3-4 lines and 2 promotional lists. The information in the article is already in the Bösendorfer article, so there is absolutely no reason for having this article Imperial Bösendorfer (piano). The article is created back in 2007 and there has been very very few editors to the article, so the problem about an extremely poor quality has been for years.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Poor quality is not a deletion criterion; the proper thing to do with an article that is poorly written is to rewrite it. If removing promotional tone results in a stub, so be it. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment about Comments - There are some points been made here that are not appropriate for a deletion discussion, per WP precedent. For example, WP:UGLY states that an article should not be deleted just because it is of poor quality. and WP:NOEFFORT says an article should not be deleted just because nobody is working on it. Unfortunately, these days it appears that an AfD is more effective than edit tags in drawing attention to an article that needs help. I am personally undecided on this one, not being an expert on piano manufacturing and marketing, but I can say that parts of this discussion are out of tune. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Once again, the article is nothing else than promotion, and it got lists that only can be for promotional reasons. Therefore I would say that the article is of a poor quality, but if you would like me to use the words "blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic" (Template:Advert, Template:Db-g11) then I will do that. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. In-line citations of independent sources will improve it, and I've supplied three (diff) [now four] .  Incidentally, the nominator's claim that the user who wrote the article removed the db-g11 tag "against what the template says" is false: it was I who removed the tag.  I saw the link in the CSD category, read the article and its history, declined speedy deletion, and recommended an AfD discussion (diff).  Fanoftheworld added the db-g11 tag again 35 minutes later (diff); two hours after that, I saw the tag was back and removed it, again recommending AfD (diff).  – Athaenara  ✉  22:00 and 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment just above – Yes, I know you removed the tag, . I have not "... claim[ed] that the user who wrote the article removed the db-g11 tag...". Read what I have written in the beginning of this page. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – per THD3. Needs pruning, but is definitely notable Pepper ∙piggle 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Each of the references specifies the model name "Imperial" as distinct from other Bosendorfer models. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- obviously different from standard pianos, and article has been significantly improved since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (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.