Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lies (Gone series)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lies (Gone series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedy declined. Written about a book that does not yet exist, has no reviews, and is written by an author that barely has a stub on wikipedia. Seems to me that the only purpose of it is to promote the (supposedly) forthcoming book. If that's not enough, go for WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined the speedy, but only because the criteria didn't appear to apply. When the only sources about a book are at Twitter, there's no way that it can be notable.  Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, Amazon appears to have heard of it, and the publisher has a website about it .  Reliable and independent sources, though, I'm not finding any.  Delete (for now) per WP:CRYSTAL.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy as the previous books of the series are notable. Armbrust (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, notable upcoming book. I suspect the best treatment for this series would be to merge them all into one article though.  See also Gone (novel). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And your sources per WP:N are...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nyttend and Bradjamesbrown. I think the book will ultimately be found to be notable, and we'll have an article - but this one is premature. No prejudice against a properly sourced article following the book's release, provided that those sources are reliable and independent. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (and no evidence of any third-party anticipation of the text) and lack of sources. --EEMIV (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (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.