Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Ché

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 Redirect to Chuck Pfarrer. - Yomangani ^talk 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Ché[edit]

Advertising. Book to be released next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -Nv8200p talk 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Author Chuck Pfarrer seems to be notable enough due to his military[1] and screenwriting [2] careers. Article should probably be cleaned up & kept as a stub, at least until the book's release. Caknuck 03:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've independently heard of the author. He's notable enough that a forthcoming book qualifies in my opinion. - Richfife 04:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section in Chuck Pfarrer until the book is released and worthy of its own article. Not advertising as such. Matthuxtable 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Keep - not advertising as such. Book due to be released next year so the article will be short until more is known. Author's name seems to sound familiar to me.Matthuxtable 09:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect to Chuck Pfarrer. Not released yet and wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but there's a small chance the title might be searched for. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not blatant advertising, and I've heard of the author. Tempted to say Delete, as per Crystal Ball, but I think the book is notable enough to have an article. Pursey 09:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Chuck Pfarrer per IslaySolomon. The redir can be broken and the article expanded when/if the book is published and becomes notable in its own right. Tonywalton | Talk 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publication of the book is a "scheduled or expected future event", and does not fall under "crystall ball" policy. GregorB 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - A book in the process of being written is not inherently notable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pursey P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 18:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's advertising Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete Advertising abuse of Wikipedia by single purpose account. Marketing abuse of Wikipedia is unacceptable, with the recent call by the Wikimedia Foundation for more draconian vigilance and policing against corporate spam. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be co-opted into advertising campaigns. Bwithh 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I was going to stay out of this, having said what I wanted to say on the talk page, but the more I think about this, the more I feel compelled to make a stand and say delete. I've run across these type of articles before, and they are so disingenuous. It is a single purpose account. The creator, on the talk page, says he will not be silenced by the forces of repression of freedom of speech, blah blah blah, but then has only made edits to Chuck Pfarrer articles, and the original article was just a cut and paste of the press release for a book that there is no buzz about. "Is going to be published" and "Is published" are two different things. The author might be notable, but the book is not - hell, it doesn't even exist yet. For all we know, Chuck has only given an outline to the publisher and is now sweating it out in his basement trying to figure out what to write to meet his deadline. This is most definately, unambiguously, crystal ball stuff here.--Nobunaga24 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as crystalballing and advertising. Recreate next year if need be. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I had initially been inclined to agree with User:Caknuck, User:Bwithh makes a much stronger argument. The comments on the talk page certainly don't inspire confidence that this isn't advertising, either. ergot 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator can always copy and keep the page until the novel comes out, and if prominent then, restore the article. There is more than one fictional account of Che. Why not combine this into an article on that subject?Noroton 00:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, upcoming book from a non-vanity press. It's already up at Random House's webpage, it's happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every random book deserves an article. Alternatively, merge to the author's article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every Random House book certainly does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We disagree, then. Random House, being one of the largest and most important publishers, certainly carries weight on its own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also: the book being announced by Random House doesn't mean it's actually been written yet, or that they will actually publish it. Furthermore, the proposed guideline at WP:BK doesn't actually mention the reputation of the publisher, although it notes that a book being self-published is generally indicative of non-notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        As someone who's worked in books on both ends of it, if Random House wasn't planning on publishing this book, it wouldn't be up on their website like this. The proposed book notability guideline isn't very good, as it stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuck Pfarrer (and smerge) pending publication and reaction. Not much than can be said without looking deep into the forbidden crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.