Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroes of Olympus


 * 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. JForget 01:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Heroes of Olympus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL ℳøℕø 00:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Only source is a fansite, recreate when the books are actually published. 2 says you, says two 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. I quote, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This will take place. Books are already on pre-order. We have solid evidence when this series will come out and what it will be about. I have added some more references to back up my claims. Airplaneman   ✈  01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - since consensus is clearly leaning towards "delete", I'd like to request userfication, either to my userspace or the creator's. Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No longer violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--ℳøℕø 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The afd was previously closed by the above poster, but I re-opened it, as I felt it could use some more discussion. I have no opinion on the article itself, however. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator may withdraw and close his own AfD. So you're renominating? Airplaneman   ✈  03:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the rule that the nominator can only close the AfD if there are no outstanding Delete votes? Silver  seren C 05:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that's correct, which is why I re-opened it, as before the nominator withdrew, someone else had made a good faith vote for delete. As far as I can tell from WP:SPEEDYKEEP, that means its should remain open even if the nominator withdraws the nomination. Otherwise, its a pretty slam-dunk overturn and relist if someone takes it to deletion review. And in response to Airplaneman, as I stated before, I am neutral on the artcle. My re-opening should be considered procedural only, and not a vote to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saying that this is "almost certain to take place" is stretching things considerably; the author could be run over by a truck before he's written anything but the first book. When the first book is published, write an article about it, based on the reliable sources that will no doubt discuss it in detail and establish its notability (mentioning, of course, that it's the first novel in a projected series). When the others are published, write articles about them; and when reliable sources report in detail on the series as a whole, write an article about the series. For now, a mention in Rick Riordan is probably all that's appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge, not enough solid info/sourcing right now.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK: "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged" This is six months off publication: the references are two fansites and three bookstore preorder listings (actually two - Amazon is listed twice). I don't think there is enough independent comment and interest for this to come under the exceptions in that clause. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (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.