Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamentals of Piano Practice

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.

Fundamentals of Piano Practice

Advert for a not-particularly-notable website (doesn't even have its own domain; it's an AOL member page). —Lowellian (talk) 15:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 15:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity/advertising, take your pick. Rje 16:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Page rank boosting and advertising. If we won't take pay for ads, we sure won't put them in for free. Geogre 16:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Blatant advertising. --Szyslak 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. (well duh, I wrote it) It may seem to be advertising, but it's surely not indended to be. Fundamentals of Piano Practice is a serious book that has made quite an impact among many piano teachers and students, and does IMO deserve its own article as much as any other book (or webpage, for that sake) that has one. Oh, for the record, I don't know more about the author than his name and nationality (and I don't know how anyone would profit on this as the site is ad-free). ;-) — Pladask 23:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed the "advertisish" paragraphs now and hope you find this little stub more acceptable. Please tell me what you think, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't add more "advertising!" votes without commenting on what I wrote before. — Pladask 23:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, commercial advertisement. Megan1967 02:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.