Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Sun (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   keep. per WP:SNOW The Wordsmith Communicate 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Sun (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article for this unreleased book (an alternative version of Twilight (novel)) does not contain enough non-trivial mentions from independent sources, thus failing WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. If one of the sources cited here is not from the author's website, then it is from an interview in which the subject matter is only mentioned in passing. However, this incident is clearly worth a mention, but the information would be better off at Twilight (novel) or Twilight (series). I advise participants of this discussion to observe WP:ITSA; the article should not be kept simply because it is relating to the Twilight franchise. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I believe there has been enough significant coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability. Sorting the wheat from the chaff a little, there's:
 * This article in The Guardian about potential continuation of the Twilight franchise, a third of which discusses Midnight Sun
 * This article in The Observer, entirely about the novel being leaked on the internet
 * This article in The Times, on Meyer's decision to discontinue work on the novel
 * This piece in The Guardian, summarising the leak and Meyer's reaction, and setting it in the context the performance of Breaking Dawn
 * This op-ed piece, again in The Guardian, which offers a paragraph of critical commentary on the issue, plus this piece from the same journalist, dedicating a full column to the same issue from a different angle
 * Note: The only reason these examples are from the British broadsheet media specifically is because as a UK editor, I'm far less familiar with which US publications are considered broadsheets and which tabloids. I currently have no firm opinion on whether the topic could be adequately merged into another article, however I believe that's an issue which should have been raised before nominating the article for deletion. Frickative  19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources shown above by Frickative indicate enough coverage to warrant a separate article.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep For the reasons stated, plus the fact that the draft is and will preumably continue to be available. --Salvadorrodriguez (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the wide range of independent sources cited above. Plus, I agree with Salvadorrodriguez. ♠  TomasBat   14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic has received significant independent coverage. Andrea  ( talk ) 15:47, 2 April 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.