Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard


 * 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 Rick_Riordan. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a book series that does not exist yet. It's too soon to see if it will pass WP:NBOOK. Vrac (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rick_Riordan. Right now the series has yet to release and so far there isn't nearly enough sourcing to really warrant an article. It's fairly rare that an unreleased book or series will gain enough coverage to merit an entry and while the odds are good that this series will gain the necessary coverage, we can't predict that it will due to the whole "law of diminishing returns" stuff. There is always the chance that a popular author's new work won't gain enough coverage for an entry, after all- happens all the time on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting this page will result in the loss of the image. Plus so many other articles about upcoming books and series exist and they're not being deleted. If you do decide to redirect it, after it's released can it come back? Esmost   πк   17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can always re-upload the image if it gets deleted, so that's not an issue. Uploading book covers doesn't really take that much time and if all else fails then I'm willing to undelete it or re-upload the cover when/if the book/series gains more coverage. As far as other articles go, the existence of other articles doesn't mean that those books actually pass notability guidelines (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - odds are that they just haven't been redirected or deleted yet, although once in a while you'll have a book that has gained enough coverage to merit an article prior to release (like Dan Brown or Stephen King). However the good thing about redirecting with history is that once the book releases and it gets the needed coverage (FWIW, I'm expecting it to) we can always un-redirect the article and add the new sources. It's not like deletion where the article history gets deleted and we'd have to start from scratch or request that the article history be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Tokyogirl79. The author is dropping hints and his fans are speculating, but there isn't enough to go on yet. It's like spring training – an enjoyable part of the baseball season, but we don't have articles on spring training. Not to worry, as soon as the book comes out and there are some reactions to write about, it's very easy to bring the article back. Just undo the edit that redirected to the author's article. Anyone can do it. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2015 (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.