Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Success in 9 Weeks


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Music Success in 9 Weeks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable book. Article reads like a thinly-veiled press release, probably written by the book's author (she is a PR person and promoter, after all). References provided are all blogs or from the publisher's own web site, none of which qualifies as reliable sources. I can't help but wonder if promoting one's band on Wikipedia is part of the book - and is leading to the two or three garage-band articles I mark for speedy-deletion on new-page patrol almost daily. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author, apparently very bright and fairly innovative, appears to have written a book, initiated a blogging contest for those who utilized her book then once enough volume had been generated via this contest, written a Wikipedia article. I have no issue with newbies not being familiar with COI, and we have no rules prohibiting people for writing for companies and products with which they are associated - so long as they write from a NPOV. However, this does appear to be advert. When this was brought to the attention of the author, the body was cleaned up considerably, which is a hopeful sign, but unless actual third party reliable, notable sourcing is available I concur that the subject is non-notable and the article should be deleted as an advert. Note that the blogging contest site appears to be defunct so no specifics are available regarding that.
 * Current sources are:

Blog evidence. http://www.sethums.com/2009/12/9-weeks-to-music-success/ KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 10:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) emusician appears to be a legitimate interview.
 * 2) is a self-advertisement used as a source, that's got to go
 * 3) rockstarlifelessons is an interview on what is clearly a blog
 * 4) promotional site
 * 5) Gig Hive. from "thebuzz" appears to be legitimate review
 * 6) review from author's site
 * 7) Midwest book review is a blog, not certain if it has any standing at all (some blogs do, take Roger Eberts for example)
 * 8) Rosebud Book Reviews. appears to be legitimate review
 * 9) same advertisement as source 1, just because you advertised in Bluegrass Journal does not mean they wrote an article about you
 * 10) Author's web site.
 * Gig Hive is a blog, and I'm pretty sure Rosebud is, too, but not absolutely certain. Midwest BR does not have RS standing. Good find on the "blog contest," which confirms my belief that this article is the end result of a PR campaign. Given Hyatt's job, that's not surprising. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * stubify removing promotional sources, Sadads (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blogs and reviews satisfy our reliable sources requirements, so long as they are independently edited and otherwise notable within the industry (and we're not talking about derogatory information).  SharedPlanetType (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in this case, it appears the author of the book actively recruited bloggers to write about her book by means of a contest, which pretty well throws away any credibility that most of these entries may have. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I took the trouble to post all of that, carefully indicating the two sources which appeared might be legitimate blog reviews - which we do accept, but not accept as sole indication of notability - and not when they almost certainly resulted from the contest, which is documented in my post above. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-published and no indication of sufficient notability. Rosebud is at Wordpress, which strongly suggests blog to me. Is it notable and independent? Don't know. I tend to be very suspicious of all bloggish material. I'm open to correction, and to being convinced by new more reliable evidence.... Peridon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a heads up, I removed several of the references that seemed to lead to un-notable blogs, and also found a review from the Country Music Television (CMT). Though I'm honestly not sure if CMT has the reputation to stand up as reliable evidence. Michizane (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note the CMT entry is not CMT itself but the CMT blog. Same issue as the other blog entries. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:14, 24 September 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.