Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadlocked (novel)


 * 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 The Southern Vampire Mysteries. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Deadlocked (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Too soon? I found the examiner article referenced in the WP article, but other than that the only thing I can find is a very trivial mention in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Everything else is self published, forums, blogs, etc. I'm sure the book exists, but I'm not so sure it is notable yet. Maybe closer to publishing there will be reviews of it, but I'm just not finding notability... yet. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What if just delete the examiner.com reference - the rest is official information? There are only 84 days left till the release. Don't delete it, please. Severenika (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the statistics - people have been waiting for the article. Severenika (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy - This is too soon; there are not enough references for the book and it is still quite far off. However, the author of the article has obviously put some work in and it will almost certainly be notable in the future (when the book if released). If it is userfied, the author can continue to work on in and the article can be published once the book is released (provided it is notable enough, which I guess it will be). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Severenika, the examiner.com reference is actually the only reference that is usable in the Wikipedia article... the rest come from unreliable sources. The author herself is not a reliable source - we have no way of verifying if her claims are true.  It could all be a giant hoax.  That said, nobody here really thinks it is a hoax... there's just not any reliable sources to prove it.  When there are, the article will for sure belong here... just not yet.  For information on reliable sources check out WP:RS.  For now, I agree with talk.  Let's move it to your user space so you can keep the work you've done, improve it, and when ready, "publish" it back on to the main Wikipedia.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just a note, but Examiner cannot be used as a reliable source at all. The reason behind this is that anyone can sign up to become an editor, making the stories there little better than a random blog entry. I also want to note that the person who wrote the Examiner articles shows up on the spam entry for Examiner (WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/examiner.com) as having repeatedly attempted to add their articles to Wikipedia. In other words, this is the equivalent of someone writing a non-notable blog and trying to add their blog entries to Wikipedia. No matter how well written they are or how informed the writer is, unless they're considered to be an absolute authority, their data cannot be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 'Mea Culpa I've never really paid much to them, never seen them as a source here before, and have ben led by non-Wiki people to think of them as more editorial than that. And I think I had them confused with a local paper which has Examiner in the title.  "You're just four steps away from becoming an Examiner," indeed!  Thanks for setting me straight Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the examiner link.Severenika (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. LOL, I made that mistake at least a dozen times before I finally caught on to why it wasn't allowing me to post the link. I learn most of my wiki lessons the hard way, I'm afraid. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Charlaine Harris but keep the article history. Odds are high that the book will get a ton of reviews, but there's not enough here now to justify keeping the article and it's too far off from the book's release date.There's a few brief mentions out there and the major booksellers have the book listed as a sale item, so unless the company decides to change the name at the last minute, the book's name seems to be the only thing that can be backed up at this point. (Of course that can change at the last minute.) I wouldn't really object if the article gets userfied or deleted, though. I just think that a redirect might be a good idea since I can see quite a few people looking it up on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Redirect to The Southern Vampire Mysteries. It's a more specific target than the author, and more suitable since this is a book in the series.  I suspect that the book will garner the coverage needed to establish notability in the future, but it doesn't have it now.  The redirect can be undone when that time comes. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (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.