Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bone Clocks


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 02:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bone Clocks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SPECULATION about a future novel. Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements. Mikeblas (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, for now. Given the author's track record, I believe the novel will be notable, assuming it is published.  But for now, this is WP:CRYSTAL.  There's pretty much nothing in the article other than a quote from the author's web site (which may or may not be a WP:COPYVIO), so there's no real loss in deleting it now.  BTW, I notified the editor who created the article, but this has pretty much been his only Wikipedia activity, so I don't know whether he'll comment. TJRC (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Best way for an encyclopedia to find out what will happen in the future is to wait.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Has just enough coverage from disparate news sources to merit a keep. So long as GNG is met, that is all that matters. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't quite get past the sense that the Bookseller ref is a warmed over press release, the Guardian is cute but doesn't really provide "coverage" that can be written for, and that as a result, we're not there yet. I have no doubt this will be notable, but I don't think it is .. yet.  --j⚛e deckertalk 02:05, 11 June 2014 (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.