Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life


 * 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 redirect to Jordan Peterson. For now. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This stub is a plug for a forthcoming book, WP:PROMO, shouldn't be here, it's advertising. Acousmana (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The article now has six sources, 3 of them are about the book directly. I belive it now meets WP:NBOOK. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel there is enough to say, given this is a sequal to a book that was so popular. Also Peterson has made a video talking about the contents of the book and the new rules in it. This video (at the time of writing) has over 250,000 views. He also read part of the introduction in this video. Because of this, I feel there is plenty to write about. We already know some of the contents of the book. As for the book not meeting WP:NBOOK, it feel does. It will meetcriteria 3 very soon and I would also argue 5. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a publication listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP. Sources from Peterson himself don't count towards notability, because they are not independent. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mention the YouTube video to suggest that there is plenty to write about. As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. I have changed the spurce now anyway. But I would suggest instead of just removing the source, I would ask you to please consider looking for a replacement, in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now extended the article to point where I feel it warrants its existance. A book does not have to be released for an article to made about it. Barrck Obama's New Book had a wiki article about it months before it was released. We already know the introduction and what the book is about. I have already put information regarding the background and there is enough information to add Summary/Content and perhaps Publication, because Peterson has outlined what formats the book will be available in and where it will be sold. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. It can be acceptable to keep a mediocre source &mdash; that's why we have the betterfact template &mdash; but it's not a good idea to keep an unreliable one. Wikipedia depends upon reliable sourcing in order to be viable. Regarding your comparison, Barack Obama was leader of the free world for eight years. That's going to make a difference for how much pre-publication attention a book will get. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NBOOK on account of not existing yet. It's not our job to make predictions; even if the book is scheduled to be published, we can't say in advance whether it's guaranteed to deserve a stand-alone article. It's always possible that an author's time has passed, that what was once shocking has become passé. We might discover, after a book's publication, that only the die-hard fans really cared, and thus that there's so little to say about it that we should just give it a paragraph in the author's biography. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jordan Peterson for the time being. Currently, this article has only two sentences of prose and no references. Once reviews, sales figures, etc. start appearing, it's likely that it will be possible to make a proper article about this book, but at this point there's not enough to say to warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now - Sources are inevitable, but until then an article is premature. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect As per XOR&#39;easter. Autarch (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per above. It's rare that media will be notable prior to its official release, especially books. Even books by extremely mainstream authors such as Stephen King have trouble passing NBOOK prior to their release, as most of the coverage is just an announcement that the book will release on X day. It looks like what's out there are just announcements that the book will release, which isn't enough for a standalone article at this point in time. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - fails WP:NBOOK. This article was made way too early. Wait for the book and reviews of it to come out. There is no need to rush this. The book will inevitably meet criteria #1 per WP:BKCRIT, but until then wait to make a standalone article. Redirect to the section on Peterson's article and build content there for now. Οἶδα (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - as above, too soon. Wait until it's published.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2020 (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.