Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass Effect: Retribution


 * 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. overall keep as the redirect argument didn't make the most sense for having a wide ranging encyclopeadia. NJA (t/ c)  11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Retribution

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD using the justification: "Book is by a notable writer of a notable company in a notable 'verse. Lack of a release date does not indicate lack of notability". WP:NBOOK seems to state otherwise, but I am open to the discussion. A possibility could be to redirect to Mass Effect (series) or Drew Karpyshyn until the book has been released and/or notability has been established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears it was just announced today, but the publisher provides a release date of 27 July 2010. So, there is a release date. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mass Effect (series). The subject isn't notable enough for its own article yet, and since its unreleased it shouldn't have one. Redirect, over deletion, would probably be best since the book has been announced.  Swarm  Talk 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of other book and video game articles are allowed to get away with existing even though they aren't released yet. Also, I don't see what the problem with notability is, the Mass Effect franchise is notable, and as a part of that franchise the book should be notable. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Other book series, even sci-fi ones, have had articles created for future books with no problems. Given that the book is only a few months away and its existence has been confirmed by multiple internet articles and previews, bookstores and the publisher, I can't see any reason for deletion at this stage. Bronzey (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per, , , , and (in German). –MuZemike 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The 'keep' arguments have presented some justification based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the articles mentioned above seem to all be disseminated from the press release announcing the eventual publication of this book half a year from now. But I have yet to see any specific arguments that justify a current article that follows WP:NBOOK, and am more inclined to see a redirect per User:Stinging Swarm. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (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.