Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magisterium Series

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magisterium Series[edit]

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

Article is about a projected five book series of fantasy novels with the first one not due until late 2014. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No notability can be reasonably asserted for something that doesn't exist and is not like to exist for at least another year. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... for now. There's more about this upcoming book than others out there, but in the end all we have are announcements that this will happen. I'm willing to userfy this until more sources become available. The big issue is that all announced plans have tendencies to fall through. Book deals hit a standstill when writer's block hits. Movie deals fall through because they sit in limbo forever. There are a million things that can (and have) happened to keep a book series from releasing. Until we have more coverage, this will have to be a delete. Since we have two authors for this, there's no way to pick and choose which one it should redirect to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose I can't really make much of an argument for why it isn't WP:TOOSOON based on the criteria. I'll just say that the reason I made the page is because I came here looking for information about it and couldn't find any. As Tokyogirl79 noted, because there are two authors there wasn't a clear place to add the information that I did find, so I made a new page. If it's deleted, I think it should be redirected to one of the authors and the info placed there. I'm not sure which one - I've seen them listed in both orders. Black is alphabetical, but Clare is often listed first, perhaps because she's more well known. Caseylf (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LIke Tokyogirl said, announcements can fall through. The fact that the book isn't out yet is definitely too soon for an article. Bring it back when it's published and becomes notable. Dusti^*poke* 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now and recreate if necessary later. Announcements can fall through, and even though there is much more known about this than other unpublished books—probably because Clare and Black are so famous—it's still much too soon. I'm normally all for redirecting, but since it's a collaboration, there's no place to redirect to. As Caseylf mentioned, Clare is arguably more famous, but Black comes first in the alphabet. It would be easier to delete and recreate in a little over a year. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:55, 28 June 2013 (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.