Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crichton's untitled posthumous 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   merge to Michael Crichton.  Sandstein  06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crichton's untitled posthumous novel

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unpublished/unfinished novel. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Dolovis (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate until more information is available. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate per bushranger,Sadads (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article does not have enough content to justify incubation. From my understanding, the publisher has not yet even hired a co-writer to finish the still untitled book. This article is premature. It may be properly added as a Wikipedia article after it has been published (if and when that happens). This is a clear case of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Dolovis (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge any to Michael Crichton, which does not appear to duplicate any of this info. (It would be better placed in a list subarticle on Crichton's novels but the editors of that article series seem to have disdained such an approach, preferring to work with a category and with a template box.  This AfD shows the potential weakness of that approach.)  - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the author article or the list of works article. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. Because the content is too thin for a stand-alone article as yet. But the "Crystal Ball" epithet doesn't apply, I think. The manuscript exists, written by a very famous author, whether and how it's eventually published or not is another issue. Barsoomian (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Exactly, this article is about the fact itself, not the novel per se. In my opinion, it should be kept or at least merged, not deleted. Jmj713 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also believe this article should be kept or at least merged, but definitely not deleted.   (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2010 (US-CST)


 * Merge to the Crichton article. A Crichton work is too valuable not to appear some time in the next century. (Consider Hemingway's posthumous works for the tardiness of those appearances.) Varlaam (talk) 09:37, 7 December 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.