Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bluebird Songs


 * 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. W.marsh 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bluebird Songs


Contested prod. Non notable publication with minimal distribution and life Nuttah68 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is notable because it was a significant case in which journalistic rights were violated. When Hugh Kane said he "spoke for the staff," he in turn silenced the other members on their views. This could damage the other journalists reputation in that it went against what a journalist could actually support.

Yes, this publication had a small life and distribution, but that is because of the journalistic sins committed by Hugh Kane. This article can easily show how journalistic sins can abruptly end a publication and cause several journalists to leave in disgrace.

This article should stay ~ USER: TIDAL5


 * Delete The article does not assert notability.  No sources are cited, can any of the information be verified?   The article describes criticism, but criticism by whom?  Published where?  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to show the effects of "journalistic sins".   Chondrite 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:01, 5 December 2006 (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.