Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoke (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   Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Smoke (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another editor's PROD reasoning: "Article about a book which is not due to be published until 2013 (see What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines for books. Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." Also, the two references go to the author's website and to Goodreads (the content of which can be edited by all Goodreads "librarians") -- not independent/reliable sources. This may be notable in the future, but the book isn't even due to be released this or next year. — Jean Calleo (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: We can revisit the issue in 2 years once its released, or possibly before then if it somehow generates a lot of significant coverage prior to that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment What about redirecting the title to Burned_(Hopkins_novel)? The section cites author's website: I never planned a sequel [to Burned], but I now plan to write Smoke, from the POVs of both Pattyn and her sister Jackie. That book will likely be a 2013 YA. I think it could be useful, as people await impatiently any information about the publishing of the book. (see comments at Goodreads). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The book has had no reviews in which to build an article. References used are not independent or reliable. As Qwyrxian correctly says, we can revisit the issue in 2 years time once it has been released and reviews have been made about the book. --BSTemple (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (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.