Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Satanic Warlock


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Satanic Warlock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither is it a repository for product announcements. This piece of literature is supposed to be release more than a year from now in April 2016. Even then, there is no guarantee that it will be popular (read: notable). Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any coverage from news sources so it seems to fail WP:GNG. I can see no other option than to delete for now, without prejudice against recreation at a later date. Thank you, ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bottom line here is that it's over a year from release, and so there's simply no independent coverage. Multi-million-dollar films sometimes (but not always even then!) generate enough third-party discussion to warrant an article this premature, but books? Not so much, and certainly not in this case. No prejudice to recreation in 2016 if independent reliable sources emerge. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and indeed too soon. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I'll be completely honest: it's hard for religious books to gain enough coverage to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia and that's after the release date. Most outlets just don't want to cover religious works, regardless of the religion. This book doesn't look like it's one of those exceptions, especially since it hasn't released yet. This may gain coverage after it releases, but I'll be honest in that the odds are stacked against it. Most of the places that would be considered RS typically go for your mainstream (ie, "safe") religious works by extremely well known people and the lack of chatter about this book in even the non-reliable sources is also kind of telling. Normally there'd be at least some kind of talk out there somewhere and there doesn't seem to be any, at least none that aren't WP:PRIMARY. I know that this hasn't released yet, but it doesn't look like it's going to be a particularly noteworthy book even within its religion. This is way, way WP:TOOSOON for an entry at this point in time. This is in Template:LaVeyan Satanism, so if deleted (which looks likely) then it'll need to be removed from there as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:07, 4 February 2015 (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.