Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesis (Roth)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis (Roth)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source is a blog  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, lack of info. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Isn't blogs basically not reliable sources? If so, then there is basically nothing useful in the article. Versus22 talk 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a random blog, this is from The New York Times, who got their information directly from the publisher. We're not talking about an unknown writer here, this book will definitely be published. If the 2020, 2024, and 2028 Olympics all have pages already in place, this book, due out next year, can have a page as well. I think there's little sense in deleting it now and then resurrecting it in a few months. AshcroftIleum (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added another source to the article, this time from The Seattle Times. AshcroftIleum (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Nemesis (Philip Roth novel). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Blogs are specifically not reliable sources of information.RP459 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The same information that appeared in the blog is also appearing in multiple newspapers, including the New York Times' print version.     These sources aren't providing more information, but there's no reason to doubt the original blog entry by now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - other articles for upcoming books only mentioned once or twice by their authors, exist. Look at Crocodile Tears and Yassen as the most obvious examples (to me, anyway...) - as long as the NYT is a reliable source, I think the article is fine. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep From a sufficiently notable writer, all announced books are notable if they get sufficient sourcing. In fact, they can even be notable if they never get written, if people write enough about them in RSs. DGG (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (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.