Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero History


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Zero History

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Upcoming book with apparently zero history of notability assertion. Of the four references, one is the author's blog, and the other three are about the author, not about the book. Delete without prejudice against recreation once the book becomes a hit.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The report initially came from Twitter, apparently - that's a source that's about as reliable as any old word on the street, which is to say 'not at all'.  Article is pure crystalballery in the meantime.  Once Gibson releases it and it becomes notable, we'll talk. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redir to William Gibson since it will be a valid search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:CRYSTALBALL Violation right there.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to William Gibson, where if it's not mentioned, it should be. I agree with Liefting that it's a likely search term. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, Internet Detectives, you do realize this is William Fucking Gibson we're talking about, right? I mean, what the shit is the point of deleting this? Any idiot with his head screwed on knows that it's going to get reviews, critical attention, etc - sufficient to have an article by Official Wiki Standards™ - once it's published, so what is the point of deleting its article now? Seriously, explain it to me, not in terms of WP:XYZ nerdspeak, but in terms of criteria that might actually matter to an actual human being not afflicted with Aspergers. I look forward to it. 69.159.84.182 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple. A lot may change between now and the scheduled release date, and Gibson himself may decide, unilaterally, to change his plans. So the chances that the book will get reviews are not close enough to 100% for the article to exist right away. That's why we want to wait for "will get reviews" to become "did get reviews." --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources mentioning its existence, WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Being written by William Gibson isn't enough to make a book notable. Some good secondary sources would be enough for keep, though.--Blargh29 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Clearly a bit of CRYSTAL going on here, but Gibson arguably (I'm not opining here) falls under WP:NB criterion 4 5 . If that argument is raised, then despite no official announcements, with sufficient reliability of sources indicating the book is forthcoming, it may be permitted to be kept. Bongo  matic  08:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be criterion 5, actually. Except that the book hasn't been published yet. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criterion says "any of his or her written works may be considered notable", not any that has already been published. So perhaps there's speculation as to whether it has been written yet. Any reasonable interpretation of that criterion would include a number of things that had not been published and exclude others (and exclude some that had, like letters to the editor). I opined for delete, so since we agree, I'd prefer you not WP:BLUDGEON me further. Bongo  matic  13:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, articles about upcoming novels for which no publication date has not yet been reliably announced should be kept in a user's sandbox until then. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 12 October 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.