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. I don't think notabily is established; one review is only a mention, another a minor and fairly trivial blurb. They don't provide enough information to indicate that this can be expanded into a full article. Article can be recreated if more sources are found establishing notability.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store[edit]

This was originally deleted as a CSD A7/G11. DRV overturned, finding that the sources given constituted an assertion of note, and evidence of non-spammy possibilities. The matter is sent to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see one full-fledged review, one capsule review, and one passing reference. Although the reviews are positive I don't see notability or importance asserted (it's about the only book in its niche). Pretty weak hook to hang the need for an article on. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for its own article. I can image this as a EL to an article on iTunes or something like that but giving this book its own article is too much. --Abnn 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BK with multiple independent reviews, and is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iTunes, how's that for a solution? >Radiant< 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nonsensical. The book has no relationship to iTunes other than iTunes being the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. iTunes could feasibly have a section on books or media about iTunes. >Radiant< 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, it could. That wouldn't mean it would be sensible to merge this article, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh very well. Delete, advertising for a non-notable product. >Radiant< 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So how do you judge notability? It meets the standard, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, two independent reviews (even if one is "capsule") seems like just-barely enough to pass our minimum requirements, especially with a passing reference thrown in for good measure. I will admit that the topic seems almost inherently spammy, somehow, but if this were a book named "Fauna of Lake Baikal", I would pass it without a second thought, so, overcoming my prejudices against the topic, I have to concede that this is, probably, barely, good enough. (Won't weep if it goes, though.) Xtifr _tälk 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
smerge to an EL under itunes: delete the rest. DewiMorgan 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in a cNet article and a couple of reviews (one a capsule and the other one looking like it weighs in at about 300 words or so) in two trade publications does not a notable book make. One can make any number of arguments that the book satisfies the absolute, rock-bottom "requirements" for inclusion, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that this book is prima facie non-notable. Oppose merging as per badlydrawnjeff's argument on the tenuous topical relationship between the book and iTunes. --Dynaflow babble 05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources we have now are light, but enough... no real harm in seeing if the article can be improved and more sources found. When in doubt, don't delete. --W.marsh 00:40, 21 May 2007 (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.