Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthas: Rise of the Lich King


 * 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. Secret account 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthas: Rise of the Lich King

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, so doing it the slow way… Non-existent book. –  iride scent  03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the reason for having it deleted. It is a book set for release in the future, but there is nothing guaranteeing it will be released or any other events such as this.  How does it differ very much between a video game or movie being released in the future as a page on Wikipedia?  For instance, why is it allowed there be a page for StarCraft 2 or The Hobbit (2011 film), but not one such as this?  Kanaru (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The two you mention have 35 and 42 citations to reliable sources to indicate their notability and the fact of their production – and not just the end product – is itself notable by Wikipedia standards. This article's "references" are five blog links and an Amazon entry. –  iride scent  04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the reference to BlizzPlanet's article. However, I fail to see how the references to Christie Golden's own blog (the author of the book) is not a reliable source.  Besides, the information from the BlizzPlanet articles are from their visit to BlizzCon 2008 (a Blizzard convention earlier this year). Kanaru (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're using "reliable" in an odd way here. Basically, we need something independent of the author in order to prove that the book is important.  Of course the author is going to write about it, but only important books get other people writing (professionally) about them. JulesH (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Since it has an ISBN, publisher, and some news I think it is ligament. --Cs california (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pending publication, in short, to be published. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article fails WP:NB. Of the 4 sources, 3 are blog entries from the books author. Only 1 is independent, and it's just an interview with her (not really about the book).  TJ   Spyke   05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning keep. It seems to just get over the line...JJJ999 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - From Notability (books): "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than WP:Notability (books), typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. Such cases should still have multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, including the title of the book and an approximate date of publication."  This book does not meet these criteria, therefore it should be deleted.  And no, blogs are not reliable sources.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NB. Wait until it's released, because there's not enough anticipation for an article now.--Boffob (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Kraftlos. Having an ISBN doesn't guarantee that the book will ever be published. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alexnia (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While I wouldn't call this a hoax, I'm a bit puzzled why they'd hold of releasing an already-written book "sometime within 2 years" as the article puts it. We need to wait until it's released or at least has some mainstream press reviews and such. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the publishing industry is exceedingly slow. About a year is the average time it takes from the date the publisher agrees with the author to publish it until it reaches bookshops.  2 years wouldn't be exceptionally slow, particularly if this is a series book and they want to space it out with others in the series. JulesH (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.