Talk:Fyre (novel)

Redirecting
I'm redirecting this since I was unable to find any real coverage of this as of yet unreleased book in reliable sources. When it releases it's likely to become notable, but there's no guarantee to that as of yet and until it gains that notability it's just WP:TOOSOON to have a separate article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored. Title has been released; final installment in a popular and bestselling fantasy series; clearly notable. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it still fails WP:NBOOK in that it hasn't received a depth of coverage. Most books in series, notable or not, don't. Other than primary, trivial, and non-reliable sources, there isn't much coverage out there. A series can be notable, but that doesn't mean that each and every book is notable outside of it. I have to say, usually if a book is going to get coverage it will gain such coverage in the days before its release in order to maximize its sales potential. This book hasn't received that and is likely not to. If/when it gets that coverage, we can unredirect it. WP:TOOSOON doesn't mean that the book is automatically notable upon its release and should be unredirected. Existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But as is always the case, there are exceptions, as the article itself notes. This is the final installment in worldwide bestselling series, which has received significant critical acclaim and is already within the top 150 of Amazon's best-sellers overall and Top 25 of best-selling children's titles. The article for the book series itself is a Good article on Wikipedia and it does not make sense to allow articles for all other installments in the series and then claim that its final installment isn't notable. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions, but they're fairly rare and bestselling status is something that almost never counts towards notability- especially not the Amazon rankings. As far as other articles go, they can only remain if they have multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability. Here's how they weigh up:
 * Magyk: This one has several reviews and is good to go.
 * Flyte: This one has some serious notability issues. The only source comes from the publisher and is for an award that isn't really major enough to warrant keeping it on that basis alone. I'll try to find sources, but if I can't then I'll redirect it to the main page.
 * Physik: This one had multiple inappropriate reviews. Just as an aside, blogs, Goodreads, merchant sites, and the like are not usable as reliable sources. Amazon should never be linked to.
 * Queste: This one linked to several other sites, most notably the HarperCollins' website itself and tried to pass it off as a review. It has tons of issues with notability.
 * Syren (novel): Same issue with inappropriate reviews.
 * Darke (novel): More notability issues, will search but will probably end up redirecting to the main article.
 * So basically, almost all of the novels other than the first one have issues with notability. I'll try to find sources but I'll be honest when I say that most series don't get much attention beyond the first book. It's rare that you have a series where each book gains a ton of reviews and notice. Bestselling doesn't mean notable. It makes it more likely that someone in a RS will write about the series, but it's not a guarantee of notability. In any case, thanks for pointing out the other articles. If they're lacking as well, I'll redirect them. No sense in keeping pages that don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've redirected Darke due to a lack of coverage. Flyte is close, very close to not having enough coverage. The problem with that article is that the coverage is almost solely trade reviews. I'm going to let it go, but I'll warn you that there are a lot of editors who don't see trade reviews as in-depth enough to be a reliable source. I'm still working on the others, but I'm seeing a trend. The first book got a lot of coverage and the rest of the books fall into the "diminishing returns" category where each subsequent book gets less coverage. If the movies ever get made then they might get more coverage, but then there are no guarantees when it comes to Hollywood. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also redirected Queste and Physik. Physik only had trade reviews and even then it was tough tracking those down. The only one left to look at is Syren and I'm almost entirely certain that it'll end up being a redirect as well. We need more than just trade reviews to give notability. If it had one non-trade review, such as the one the Toronto Star gave Flyte, I'd be willing to work with that but we don't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly enough, Syren has enough to where it'd pass. It's light, very light, but it's enough for now. In any case, even with the three books that did pass notability guidelines, that still doesn't guarantee that this book will. The issue with the series is that while the first two books gained enough coverage, the next two didn't. Syren did, but that's not a guarantee that this will. Trust me, I'd love it if we could write articles for every book in a notable series, but the guidelines state that the book has to pass notability guidelines. The only exceptions are for very, very, VERY rare circumstances where a book series or its author has become so overwhelmingly notable that everything they touch would be notable. This is reserved almost exclusively for authors such as Shakespeare, JK Rowling, and the like- and there are people who argue that they aren't even at that level of notability. The unsaid rule of that level of notability is that if they're at that level of fame then finding sources for the books wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Selling well and being popular does not equate to notability on Wikipedia. Don't worry though- a redirect isn't a delete and if/when the series does get more coverage (or when the movies are released) they can be unredirected with the additional coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but this is a major change. Should the links in the templates and on the Septimus Heap page to those books that have been redirected be removed? Because otherwise, people are just going to be bounced back to the Septimus Heap page and that doesn't make sense. Also, while I'm willing to agree with your reasoning, it would be nice to hear from at least a few other people regarding this, especially since most of the pages you redirected have existed on the site for years and it seems a bit bizarre to suddenly say that they no longer pass notability. Now, maybe it's true, but you have to admit that it's a bit odd that that would be the case, and yet the pages have been allowed to exist for years. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That the pages have been allowed to exist doesn't really mean much. The rules for notability are constantly changing and I've seen multiple pages deleted or redirected because while they passed older guidelines, they no longer passed the updated and more strict versions. I wouldn't mind hearing from a few more people either. There are always ways to get around stuff like this, so it might be a good idea to create a page called "List of books in the Septimus Heap series" and then go into more depth in that article, listing the book synopses and such. There might be some guff, but generally things like that are allowed since it's a branching off of the main article and allows for more detail that might otherwise be removed from the main page because it would make the main article too long. It's just that when it goes into specific articles for the books that we have to really stick with the current book notability guidelines. You're right though, in the main article the links should be removed because it'd just redirect there. Although if we do make another page that would encompass the books' plotline, they could redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)