Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Me Flows What You Call Time


 * 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. Looking over the discussion, none of the delete-!voters really mentioned any policy- or guideline-based argument why this was to be deleted rather than kept, merged or redirected per WP:ATD. Since the majority agrees that this subject is notable enough to either have a standalone article or be mentioned in another article, this AFD can be closed. On the latter, the consensus seems to be narrowly in favor of keeping it as a stand-alone article but a merge discussion can always take place on the talk page.  So Why  17:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

From Me Flows What You Call Time

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unpublished novella. The speculation about it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notability and fame is because of its delayed publishing, and not otherwise. Passes WP:GNG and (if one were to consider the concept pragmatically) WP:NBOOK.  Lourdes  08:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep What's up with the deletionists? Why would this even be considered for deletion? Its notability is deliniated in the article itself, with citations. These rabid deletionists are nothing more than vandals. Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG said: "The speculation about it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia." There is no speculation. Read the article and the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh...what? Mind your language please. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked through Lourdes's sources, and while I thought a redirect to Future Library project was appropriate, I can see the case for keep. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Future Library project. While I find the deletion nomination baffling, there really isn't likely to be much more to write about this novella for quite a long time, and it can be covered adequately in the article on the project. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: --- "completed in 2016 and not to be published until 2114" says it all. Quis separabit?  17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * —In fact, that doesn't "say it all." Read the article. Gerntrash (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Future Library project, as if that page is notable it would be the obvious merge target, and this article is liable to merely remain speculation for the foreseeable future.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * — It is not speculation. The book exists. Read the article and cited references. Gerntrash (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITEXISTS, mere existence does not equal notability or suitableness for an article. Due to the lack of any information about what is in it, it is unsuitable for a separate article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed it was speculation. I answered that claim. Now you're moving the goalposts. Again: read the article and the cited references. There is no reason to delete this article other than obstinence. Gerntrash (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The mess surrounding it looks notable. Schracq (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See SPI. Unscintillating (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to David Mitchell (author), Userfy sources on request Passing GNG doesn't necessarily satisfy WP:N, including that Wikipedia's notability requires attention to a topic over a period of time. Article is written stating the future in Wikipedia's voice and is rife with speculation.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Unscintillating. The sources I've listed range from May 2016 to December 2016. I didn't understand your statement that "passing GNG doesn't necessarily satisfy WP:N". Thanks,  Lourdes  07:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's generally covered in the lede and nutshell of WP:N. It includes: WP:SUSTAINED (related to the nutshell), WP:NOT (lede), and all of the SNGs (lede), as well as the fact that WP:N can be decided directly from its definition in the lede and explanation in the nutshell.  Notability essays apply here.I looked a bit more, and in WP:NBOOK I found WP:BKCRYSTAL, which leads to WP:NOT's WP:CRYSTAL:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

5 Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
 * }
 * Do you agree that "product announcement", advance price £600, fits here? Unscintillating (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly passes GNG. The issue with #5 of NOT really addresses things that are self-published. Once reliable sources are established and the announcement gains greater scrutiny, the situation changes. South Nashua (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect into Future Library project. Use what is salvable (if any) for that article. Rationale: As a standalone I disagree that there is justification for this article. Reasons were mentioned by others above and for me these trump the WP:GNG. It may still be a legitimate spinout of Future Library project given sufficient importance and substance of that article. It is unclear to me at this stage that Future Library project is terribly important and irrelevant whether this is the case (hence will not check) since Future Library is short and underdeveloped. Hence we should add a line or more and some sources from From Me Flows What You Call Time into Future Library project and redirect. gidonb (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable work by an important literary author. Pattillog (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Criticism Pattillog (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2017 (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.