Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Book by Ozzy Osbourne, scheduled to be published next month. References only state where to buy it and where Ozzy will be signing autographs. Despite the fame opf its author, fails WP:NBOOKS for the time being. Delete with no prejudice against recreation once the book itself meets our notability requirements independently of its famous author.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat a sequal to his previous book "I am Ozzy"(a new york times best seller) which has gained popularity. The book has gained alot of popularity and when the book is released the page can be expanded, and be reviewed. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Davidravenski (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact the book is a sequel to a popular book is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. The fact an upcoming book is anticipated by potential readers is news, not encyclopedic. When the book has been released and has proven to be notable, an article can be recreated; until then, Delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Can be recreated when its notability has been established. Right now none of the references establish notability. Agree with reasons given above by User:The Bushranger. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: Given the relatively close date at which this book is scheduled to be published, it is possible, even likely, that reliable sources that would save this article from deletion will be published before the close of this AfD. That must be taken into account when closing this discussion, and focus should be on last-minute comments. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisting comment. While there are 2 delete !votes and no objections, I'm relisting this per the nominator's comment concerning possible post-release coverage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Last Minute Keep based on post-release coverage in Billboard, MSNBC , Fox News , International Business Times , probably more, all of which are new sources since the last comment here, demonstrating notability under WP:GNG --joe deckertalk to me 14:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Allowing more time to evaluate Joe Decker's last-minute sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with sources: Those sources and information from them should be added sooner rather than later, but based on those, the article should be sufficient to pass NBOOKS now. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still Delete. seems like routine coverage generated by a round of interviews and pre-release issues sent to the media to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least merge to Ozzy Osbourne. The cited sources by Joe Decker are sufficient for me to say keep, but I can see how they could be considered routine coverage.  But in that case, merging to the Ozzy article would be better than deletion, and I'll note that the article (as of this writing) doesn't mention the book.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources listed above seem to be sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK - yes, they are a little routine, but apparently that isn't cconsidered by the guideline, which only disallows "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". These are none of those. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2011 (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.