Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Climate Caper (book)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Climate Caper (book)

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

Unpublished non-notable book. Lacks substantial GHits beyond blogs and minor references. Absolutely no GNEWS hits ttonyb1 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The book is on the verge of being published and will soon have numerous hits on google news. Please wait a few weeks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Soon to be published, like anything on the topic it is likely to make a splash or a plop. I reworded the article a bit. Awickert (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks sources to establish notability against WP:N or WP:BK Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Assessing the likely notability of this article is a little like gazing into a crystal ball at present and if it had been me I would have waited at least until reviews hit the popular press before creating the article. Now that it has been created but ... One thing that does need to happen is that the article should be renamed to remove the non-needed "(book)" disambiguation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Article was renamed to remove unneeded disambiguation. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. Shouldn't have been created yet, but what do we do now? Awickert (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously we just leave it. It's already getting press mentions in Australia. It's clearly going to become part of this important global debate. I cannot understand the anxiety some editors seem to feel about deleting everything, immediately, even books yet to be published. I mean, whats the point of the template of not for cases like this? ► RATEL ◄  06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my knowledge of policy is pretty holey. So if there's already a template, I would agree even more with you. Awickert (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The purpose of the future book tag is it is to be posted on unpublished books where information can change quickly or some information may be in question. Its purpose is not to circumvent notability criteria.  For example, if another Harry Potter book were to be announced by J. K. Rowling, there would be extensive media coverage well in advance of publication, but the details would probably change day-to-day. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that merely your opinion of the purpose of the tag, or is that documented somewhere? ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the template documentation? future book ttonyb1 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. And it doesn't include the sentiments you express above; in fact it has no bearing on notability at all. ► RATEL ◄ 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, that is exactly the point. It does not say the tag can be used to as an substitute for Notability. Unless you see that somewhere else in documentation, I do not see how you can make the jump that is a substitute.  ttonyb1 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your circular argument is not sensible to me, and your statement about no GNEWS hits is already wrong, 2 weeks before publication! I can only imagine how much more wrong you will become in a few weeks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this unpublished book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 5 August 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.