Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Solomon Key


 * 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 of the debate was keep.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Solomon Key
This is soothsaying, speculation, maybe even "original research", but not an encyclopedic article with actual facts. Please come again when the book has actually been released or any actual facts can be reported. zerofoks 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is a real matter, and yes speculation is involved as the book is not released, however there is information on this page we can confirm. we know the book is about the founding fathers of our country, in which it is confirmed many were active freemasons. why should speculation not count as information. there is much speculation over many things. speculation breeds thought, thought breeds knowledge. The announcement should be made, and this page should be kept for those who until then, are interested in hearing the possability of this book. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 12.73.12.105 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Keep It is very stupid to delete this. It is very interesting and is helpful for people who want to know what Dan Brown is up to. Whoever wants to delete this entry is wasting their time. Peace out. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.46.155.141 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Keep No need to delete the article, speculation can be removed, and actual facts added as they appear. Qutezuce 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you delete all the speculation there is now, there won't be anything left. --zerofoks 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At the very least you would have that it is a future book by Dan Brown, which is already enough for an article that will grow in the future. Secondly, it should be pointed out that much of the speculation is not Wikipedians speculating, but speculation that has already been recorded elsewhere, and hence is verifiable. Finally, there are many facts, the relation to Kryptos is fact (the coords of Kryptos were on the dust jacket of his previous book), the web quest is all fact as it comes from the publishers website, etc. Whether these relate to The Solomon Key is debatable, but outside sources have made the connection, not Wikipedians speculating. Qutezuce 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * None of that is "fact". It's pure media hype generated for something that doesn't even exist, yet. I see no reason how Wikipedians should report on this in a NPOV-manner suitable for an encyclopedia. And no, you would not have at the very least the "fact" that the book will be out in 2006 because you don't know it will be. It might be, but then again, it might be not. It's just a plan. --zerofoks 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about 2006, I said it is a future book by Dan Brown. The term "future book" obviously doesn't mean that the book is sure to come out, as no on can predict the future, Dan Brown could die suddenly and the book would not get published, but right now he is alive and his intention is to publish the book in the future. The publisher may be trying to hype the book with a Web Quest, but it is still a fact that a Web Quest existed. Qutezuce 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the article is not speculation itself but a record of the speculation of others. I imagine that the book will be published whether or not Dan Brown is alive to see it.  In the event of its non-appearance, the content of the article can refer to the book and media hype in a neutral way. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|25px|UK]] 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Not_a_crystal_ball not a published book yet. --Pboyd04 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete WP should document things that exist in real life or in a fictional setting, not things that do not exist. Endomion 02:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tough luck for Category:2006 books then.... --zerofoks 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. This is real fiction. -- JJay 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as information on the page is drawn from other sources, it is valid. For example, Dan Brown has hinted at potential topics of the book in occasional lectures and interviews.  There is huge public interest in the book, and those hints have been covered by news organizations such as Wired and the Wall Street Journal.  It is perfectly valid for this article to provide a collection of Brown's hints and other speculations, as long as their source or reference is mentioned.  Elonka 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:Not_a_crystal_ball states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This has verifiable information, and I'm sure a book by Dan Brown merits as significant interest. Metsfanmax 17:06, 03 January 2005 (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.