| Revision as of 08:24, 11 October 2009 editOdie5533 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,340 edits -Official Wiki Standards← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:38, 12 October 2009 edit undoBlanchardb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers87,668 edits →Zero HistoryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Redirect''' to ], where if it's not mentioned, it should be. I agree with Liefting that it's a likely search term. ] (]) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | *'''Redirect''' to ], where if it's not mentioned, it should be. I agree with Liefting that it's a likely search term. ] (]) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Hey, Internet Detectives, you do realize this is <I>William Fucking Gibson</I> 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 ] nerdspeak, but in terms of criteria that might actually matter to an actual human being not afflicted with Aspergers. I look forward to it. ] (]) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Hey, Internet Detectives, you do realize this is <I>William Fucking Gibson</I> 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 ] nerdspeak, but in terms of criteria that might actually matter to an actual human being not afflicted with Aspergers. I look forward to it. ] (]) 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." --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">]•]•]</span></sup></small>- timed 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' No reliable sources mentioning its existence, ]. --] (]) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' No reliable sources mentioning its existence, ]. --] (]) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Being written by ] isn't enough to make a book notable. Some good secondary sources would be enough for keep, though.--] (]) 08:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Being written by ] isn't enough to make a book notable. Some good secondary sources would be enough for keep, though.--] (]) 08:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:38, 12 October 2009
Zero History
- Zero History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 -- 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 -- 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)