Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If I Did It

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 Snowball Keep, no need for this to continue. VegaDark 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If I Did It

If I Did It (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Strong Keep It's on cnn.com.

Non-existent book; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article can be written if and when this book is ever published. Agent 86 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, per nom. I've heard about it through the grapevine, but it's still just gossip at this point. I searched Google and couldn't find anything substantial as a source... a CourtTV.com "rumors" message board and Digg frontpage story aren't credible enough. Once this is confirmed -- if it is confirmed -- the page can be restored and we'll work from there. --Czj 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Keep, as proof of existence has now been established. Even if it's not quite making a splash in the search engines yet, apparently the news sites know about it. --Czj 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to OJ Simpson. we only have enough about the book to write a sentence (It's been mentioned/confirmed..., scheduled for release..., and is about...). Once there's more info available we can write more. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the books exists, is being published November 30 and Fox News is airing a two-part interview with Simpson on November 27 and 29. The nomination is based on the book's not existing and it clearly does. [1] Otto4711 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Note, I added the box at the top which says that this is an expected future book. I think this overcomes the crystal ball argument (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_book_seven). I agree that this may not have enough credible sources. Cmsb705 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously AdamBiswanger1 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs to have a few sources added to it. I believe there's an article on CNN.com about it now. 23skidoo 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I added a link to a Reuters article but more is certainly welcome. Otto4711 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep due to the nature of the subject and the apparent publicity surrounding it, although I would also support a merge to the author until such as time when there is enough externally verifiable information to produced a third-party, sourced, and verifiable article. -- saberwyn 20:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• KeepNew York Time reported on the book today: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/15book.html?ref=business
• Keep While true that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article is notable as it is not unverifiable speculation and the subject matter has certainly has enough wide-spread interest to "merit an article if the anticipated event had already occurred" . According to news reports the book is to go on sale in two weeks, so it has already been written and is almost certain to be released and sold as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Why, oh why can't he just go away.. JGardner 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This is clearly a notable book and event. Rray 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -It is a widely reported story in the news, and currently has almost 2,000 Google news hits, even before the publication. If anything, the article should be expanded to include the reaction in the publishing industry, as well as the greater public. And this is not speculation. As well as being on the news, the book is listed on the Harper Collins website [2].Additionally, I think it should be linked to--but not merged with--the article about Simpson and the murders he committed. Jeffpw 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple independent sources: publisher and AP story, interview on Today show. If the truth fits, you must admit. Edison 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've added the book cover from Harper Collins, the ISBN and a link to the Harper website. The book is happening, and it is going to cause a storm of controversy. This article needs to be kept. Jeffpw 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its one of the headline news stories at CNN and definitely exists (not really sure how it is "still just gossip").Wikipediarules2221 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons listed above. There is no conflict with the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, as this is both "notable" and "almost certain to take place." Even when it wasn't "certain" to take place, the "speculation (was) well documented," as noted in all the arguments listed above. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is in place to prevent original research, which this article is not.--Hnsampat 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Crystal Ball policy says, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This book/TV special is almost certain to take place as the events are highly advertised and the release of the book is all but a certainity (It has probably already been shipped.) This book has already had numerous reviews and will almost certainly be a NY Times Best Seller (but such a prediction is using a crystal ball.)Balloonman 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Added quote from various publishers and Denise Brown. Will get a quote from Ron Goldman's father later. Jeffpw 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The book is scheduled to go on sale in just over 2 weeks. A good portion of the article is cited even. Granted there could be some editing to remove some original research but I don't know how much more positive we need to be that this will be released. I'm not understanding the nomination even. How is the book "non-existant"? If someone reported that OJ Simpson might be writing a book in the future, that's non-existant. If major news outlets and the publisher speaking about a book scheduled to be released in two weeks along with a major promotional television appearance doesn't make a book "existant" then what is existant?Hammy 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This book clearly exists, and will be published in the near future.--Danaman5 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is factoral, this is a book, this is a contriversial issue. --69.67.235.55 04:42, 16 November 2006 (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.