Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygmy (novel)

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 deleted without prejudice to recreating this article once the novel is released. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pygmy (novel)

Pygmy (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not sure about this one. PROD removed by anonymous IP, saying "I don't see why it should be deleted if there's an official author announcement." The specific guideline at WP:BK#Not yet published books is quite clear that articles about not yet published books "are generally discouraged unless multiple independent sources provide strong evidence that the book is widely anticipated"; that is in line with the general notability guideline, and serves a useful purpose in discouraging use of Wikipedia for advertisement by every author who announces a book. This article clearly fails that standard - the only source is the author's web-site; and this is the only contribution of the originator Zachary yamada (talk · contribs), raising the suspicion that it is promotion. On the other hand, we don't appear to apply this standard in practice: Category:Upcoming books has over 200 entries. I looked at half a dozen at random and none, not one, cited any independent source; some did not even have a publication date. Have we, in effect, given up on the notability standard? I make no recommendation, I would like to see what the consensus is. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I can't find any independent indication this book is being published, or by a major publisher, etc. No discrimation against the artlce being recreated later if more sources are found. As for the nominator's comments, it varies depending upon the book. I beg to differ that all the books in the category are unsourced, etc. A prime example is And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks, a lost Jack Kerouac/William S. Burroughs novel coming out soon, and the Bond novel Devil May Care. Both have numerous media reports surrounding their releases. As for other books, it's a case of Wikipedia needing to update its standards to the 21st Century as in many cases official websites and commercial sites are the only initial source for this information. That's why I'm only saying weak delete because if someone can add a bit of info to this article to suggest it isn't vanity press or something like that, then I'm quite willing to change my vote. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - there are sources confirming this book http://chuckpalahniuk.net/news/plot-chuck-palahniuks-2009-novel-pygmy-revealed , but that's still not much info at the moment. Goldenglove^{Contribs · Talk} 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm leaning towards weak keep and weak delete Nothing444 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced CP, who wrote Fight Club, is a major author. I'd accept an article about a forthcoming book by a major author with his article in WP who has previously written what we consider notable books, on the odds that the next one will be also, if there is some good 3rd party sourcing that it is indeed a forthcoming book. I'm not happy about "to be released as early as 2009." He's just written the first draft, or so he says. This is too near CRYSTAL, without even a publication date.DGG (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough information at the moment. When there's more solid and reliable information is the time for this article. SilkTork *^YES! 22:23, 27 March 2008 (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.