Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The seven sorcerers


 * 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   Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The seven sorcerers

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

Contested WP:PROD. The article fails Notability (books), which says a book must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and the article should therefore be deleted. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL because multiple independent sources must have provided strong evidence that the book will be published.  The Le ft ori um  12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per additions made to the article by after nomination. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Otherwise, it is still a delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about shooting someone in the foot?


 * Who said anything about it being a book? It could be a movie script for all you know. And luxford already has a contract being written up for the first one :*It says specifically in the lead section. Please sign your post using ~ .  Zoo  Fari  12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that changing book for text and script changes nothing to the deletion rationale. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Shannon Luxford, the writer of the texts, I Currently have a deal written up and is currently being signed. This page will be back up soon as I annonce who is going to be the publisher (if boook) or director (if Moive). So It would be useless to delete since it will be back up in the coming months.Luxlow (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CRYSTAL. We are not fortune tellers, so until then, it is a nono.  Zoo Fari  13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So roughly all the page would need is more ref's? is that it? i'll try and find some more on it but I dont think I'll fund any cause this has been under very confidentiality and only a few have seen the actual script for it. of an d by the way, it will become a book most likely due to it will be published in 2012 on the 13th of January.Luxlow (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability and failing the crystalball test. Assuming that User:Luxlow really is the author, her words only give more reason for deletion as a crystalball.  No reason not to recreate if this is published and gains necessary sources.  Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, I am a Male, Nyttend and if it is through crystal ball, due to the fact it already has a release date, it would be coming out in consumers hands, though I might be independantly publishing rather than getting a large company toLuxlow (talk) 13:50, 20 June 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.