Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails criteria at WP:BK - outside of blogs, etc there is only a newspaper local to the home town of the writer. Also self-published. dougweller (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless non-trivial reviews can be found. I am tempted to say weak delete, but an exhaustive google search brings up little information that doesn't originate from the sourceMrathel (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia, and blogs don't count as sources. Dahn (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial and self-promotional. Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The book meets the Notability (books) guideline because it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." I'm not counting two interviews, here and here, cited in the article, because they're on Blogspot.  These look good to me though:
 * review in the Missoula Independent.
 * review on WNEW (FM).
 * article on JamBase, a significant web site for fans of jam band music.
 * the JamBase article again, on the significant web site All About Jazz.
 * article on Popular Culture Madness.
 * article on MuzikReviews.com. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment yes, but "non-trivial" is the key. The jambase "article" is written as a promotion, and is not a review. Mrathel (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As for PopCultureMadness this link says "Writers, Bands & Artists: If you want Pop Culture Madness to review your Book, DVD or CD, e-mail your information to PCM's editor, and we'll get back to you with submission details!". So I don't see how this can be used to establish notability. MuzikReview simply mentions the book is to be published, which is about as trivial as you can get. WNEW is I agree promoting the book (reading excerpts), but that's not enough either. dougweller (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant independent sources WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, plus: Not an academic book, but Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,433,267 in Books. THF (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (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.