Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOS4A2


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

NOS4A2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd previously PRODed this article with the justification of it not having yet been released and that everything is based upon one source talking about the author tweeting the cover. A search didn't bring up enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that this is ultimately notable at this point in time. Will it eventually become notable? Maybe, but we won't know until spring of next year. Saying that it'll become notable due to the notability of the author is a little premature, as a million things could happen between now and its release date, either cancelling the book altogether or delaying it. If it'd received lots of coverage beforehand then it could merit an article, but that simply doesn't exist at this point in time and the only coverage that currently exists surrounds the book's cover being tweeted and that's not enough for notability for WP:NBOOK If/when it gets more coverage it can be re-added, but right now the rationale for keeping it falls under WP:CRYSTAL and somewhat WP:ITEXISTS. It's just far too early to warrant having an article for this right now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The novel is by a notable author (Joe Hill), it is already completed and is set for a release in 2013. An excerpt was already published in the e-book that Hill co-wrote with Stephen King. The source in question wasn't just the author's tweet; it was a published article on MTV that discussed the book in question as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for now Keep - There have been several cases where I wholly agree with Tokyogirl79 but I am voting keep with this one because the release date has been announced as April 30, 2013. Google News provided very little aside from this blog from this March. Surprisingly, I found additional results while searching with a main Google search, a brief mention through a CNN blog here and a blog here and his Twitter also mentions the two previews through his other books In The Tall Grass and Thumbprint. NEW COMMENT: I have realised that it may be too soon for the article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "will be released" doesn't count towards notability. The thing is, it's likely to be released but there's absolutely no coverage of this book in-depth out there. We can't keep a book based on brief and incidental mentions in the press and only one in-depth source. If that's all it takes for notability then we need to end just about every single AfD out there as a "keep" because this goes against every form of notability out there. There are no other in-depth and reliable sources out there. We only have one source based upon the author's tweet and we need more than one in-depth source to show notability. In the end your arguments are based around "it exists" and "obviously notable" and a touch of "inherited notability". There is no in-depth coverage of this book! None. Zip. If trivial sources and one source is all we need, then I've got about a thousand books that aren't out yet and have received similar coverage. And at least three times that many that have been deleted or are up for deletion that have been deleted for similar issues. It's likely it will get released and it's likely it'll get coverage. But saying that it absolutely will, that it'll get coverage, and that nothing will happen between now and April is predicting the future. We have no idea what will or won't happen. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And as far as the tweet remark goes, it's an article based entirely off the author's tweet and blog. It's not like there's a whole lot of hard, in-depth coverage of the book. Most of the article (which is very short and brief) re-posts Hill's tweet and blog verbatim. It's about the same as basing it off of a press release, in other words.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The other source is just a reposting of a non-notable blog on Zimbio. The actual source of the Zimbio post is here: I honestly don't consider that to be that usable as a source as far as notability goes, as it looks like anyone can have their blog posted on Zimbio.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I actually intended to vote "Neutral" but leaned towards keep when I saw additional sources. I will change my vote now. SwisterTwister   talk  04:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded nasty. I re-read what I wrote and realized I do sound like a bit of a snot. If anyone can provide even 1-2 more in-depth and reliable sources to show that it's getting coverage in the here and now based on something other than the twitter/blog source in the MTV article, I'd be willing to withdraw. It's just that right now there's not a lot of coverage. This would be worth incubating or userfying and I do think it'll eventually become notable. I'm just leery about making exceptions based on stuff like this because I've seen books get pulled or pushed back to where they aren't released for years and don't really have enough coverage for an entry, regardless of who wrote it. If we keep one article based on the notability of the author then that's not exactly fair to the other authors who have upcoming novels that have received the same amount of coverage and might be the same level of notability, yet have their books removed. I'm sort of a "it's applicable to all or applicable to none, equal treatment" sort of girl.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Tokyogirl79. No present coverage on the topic; nothing's coming up on NOS4A2. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (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.