Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Squared (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 redirect to Matt Beaumont. NW (Talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Squared (novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it has just in published,and is not in any WorldCat library yet, I do not see how it can already be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The book is a follow up to one of the first email based epistolary novel. It is written by a successful author who is well known. To delete the article based on the fact it's in no WorldCat library stems more from the fact of it's recent release than it not being noteworthy. --Lorcav (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lorcav's argument. Sources will become avalible in time. Patience. Francium12 (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd also like to point out that a more appropriate Google search (E2 Matt Beaumont) gives many more results and sources than the above "Find Sources" link. --Lorcav (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not bank on future notability; WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I did a careful search, and this book is not (yet) notable; no reviews or even mentions at all in reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While i agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we are not talking about a future event. We are talking about a book that has been published and, clearly, already exists. It's not speculative to detail this book and the article makes no mention of future events or anything else forbidden. It is published by an imprint of one of the world's largest publishing companies. I fail to see why this page has any less relevancy than many others.--Lorcav (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be kept - the book is the sequel to a genre-creating novel, and is one of the few titles in the world to be written entirely in email/sms/im, therefore is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.216.27 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Wasn't sorted. Now sorted and relisted. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculations of future notability is WP:CRYSTAL. Other than the single source, I can't find any WP:RS despite a search. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, Matt Beaumont, as the best alternative to deletion. There is a high chance of this book receiving reviews in the future since its prequel, e (novel), is notable. Because this book will likely become notable in the future, there is no reason to delete this content, which is already sourced with a review from Den of Geek. A redirect will prevent the content in this article from being lost. When/If this novel becomes notable, the redirect can be undone. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this sequel is from a major publisher, so author has not fallen from grace. regardless of press coverage currently, its essentially notable as an original work stemming from a previous notable work. now, if we get endless sequels, with less and less sales, maybe after a while no new articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: Unfortunately, the Keep arguments are all based on fallacies. Let's review the notability criteria for books. "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." No. It hasn't been. "The book has won a major literary award." No. It hasn't. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." What reliable sources would those be, please? "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Nope. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." Once again, fails. There is nothing in this criteria giving a free pass for sequels. There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for every book Bantam publishes. There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for epistolary novels written in e-mail. And ... beyond that, "Sources will become avalible [sic] in time" is a garbage Keep rationale; WP:V requires that reliable sources exist, not at some indefinite point in the future, but as the fundamental requirement to sustain an article. To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ravenswing 10:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Beaumont. Just because the first book is notable does not automatically make this one notable. If reliable sources later rise up, the article can be revived. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.