Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bale Out

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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) VX!^talk 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bale Out

Does this really need its own article? I think having this information on Lucian Piane makes a lot more sense Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received a good amount of discussion and exposure in multiple secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, don't merge. It easily surpasses NOTE, and that's the end of that. Also, AfD is not a place to discuss merges, which apparently is what the nominator wants. Look out for a day of pure keeps, and close as SNOW. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -If we should broaden WP:NOTNEWS to remove our coverage of these flash in the pan-type articles is a valid argument, but as it is this article is well-referenced to multiple reliable sources as required per WP:GNG. Echo Peregrine in that it's better to discuss merges on the talk rather than an AfD. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good article and notable enough for me. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any reason to get rid of it. Hellbus (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think is tragic and understandable society obsession with celebrities, but this seems to be what is notable these days. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Plenty of coverage, enough to establish notability. Also, while I know that this does not in itself establish notability, it is a very well-written article, and in a fit of WP:IGNORE, I'm going to claim that Wikipedia would be a poorer encyclopedia without it. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:00, 16 February 2009 (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.