Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe and the bassett


 * 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 delete. Sr13 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe and the bassett

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, only got back 5 results on Google. Jimmi Hugh 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unless someone can demonstrate this book is even remotely notable, in which case it would need an extreme revision for quality. Talmage 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Written as an advertisement, with the contact email on the page Corpx 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm pretty sure that the author of this (both the book and the article) is a certain 11-year-old who as User:Gasilli has been creating other articles about his nonnotable game-creating endeavors today. Gasilli Gaming Studios has already been speedied, and I'm about to tag Colony 105 for the same treatment. After further review, I think my previous conclusion was incorrect, but my opinion remains to delete, as nonnotable and unsourced. Deor 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Non notableness&mdash; arf! 07:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not verifiable and probably non-notable. 5 ghits.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-per above ChrisLamb 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete apparent hoax. I don't believe that a book and game for which "Hushpuppies shoes bought a limited licence to distribute a small number of copies with their children's shoes internationally in July 2005" only gets 5 ghits, 4 of them apparently written by the author, and the other a page that coincidentally puts the words of the title next to each other. JulesH 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Page author just claimed to be book author on talk page, am going to place on speedy for advertisement. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am tempted to just delete it, but let us follow procedure. Clearly not notable, however, under any parameters.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Its not a hoax and is clearly notable. Please keep this debate free of personal feelings. In order for a company as huge as Hushpuppies to even consider let alone commission is proof of notability. This is not a marketing strategy and I have demonstrated this fact clearly by editing the page to the most basic information. Any additional information will be added incrementally as to avoid problems and/or violation of any wikipedia terms and conditions. Finally, why shouldn't an author post their own work on to wikipedia? It isn't as if other people can't add to the page. Get it into your heads, you are not gods. Whether you delete Joe and the Bassett or not, it will eventually return to wikipedia with notability that noone could dare deny Builder9 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the problem with the article isn't whether the subject is famous or not, it is whether the information is verifiable and whether the subject meets notability guidelines. At the moment it doesn't seem to meet those conditions&mdash; arf! 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If Hush Puppies have really licensed it, I'm sure you can provide some evidence of this (e.g. a pointer to a press release from the company that discusses their acquisition). Failing that, I'm afraid the entire article is unverifiable original research and as such must be deleted. JulesH 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But the thing is, there is plenty of evidence. It's just not all on the internet, and why should it be? Hushpuppies don't even advertise on television, using the internet for sales only. Any one of you could verify the existence of the book by writing to hushpuppies. It is your duty as employees of the Wikipedia company Builder9 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said it has to be on the Internet? But, it has to be published.  See WP:V which explains the reasons why.  BTW: I don't believe any of us editing this debate are employees of Wikimedia. JulesH 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is published work. In 2005 it was used for Hushpuppies shoes children's shoes promotion. Hushpuppies can verify this and they are a reliable source. Builder9 15:42, 29 June 2007 (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.