Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1635: The Papal Stakes

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 Eric Flint. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1635: The Papal Stakes[edit]

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

I did a search for this title and there are no reliable sources that show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. I had initially redirected it, but it's been challenged under the premise of "it exists", so to be fair I'm bringing it here. Unless we have 4+ reliable sources suddenly get published, I'm going to doubt that this will pass notability guidelines anytime soon. The author is notable, the overall series is notable, but this particular entry? Not notable outside of the series enough to merit its own article at this point in time. If anyone can find sourcing for it I'm open to alternatives, but there's a dearth of RS here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. The article material is basically "it exists" and then a plot summary. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total failure of every single criterion of WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the heck? All the other books in the series have individual articles; what makes this one special? It doesn't (yet) have a review in Publishers Weekly? —WWoods (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:NBOOK you must have coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. That doesn't exist for this book at this point in time and per WP:CRYSTAL, might never exist. We can't keep a book based on sources maybe coming about one day and we can't keep one because other books in the series have articles, although I'd like to point out that some of them have the same issues of not having enough coverage. It looks like the only reason some of them still have articles is because nobody has nominated them yet for deletion, so saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument to keep this one. If you want to keep the book, find reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Flint - Google News found no evidence of third-party sources and it may be too soon, considering it was released recently (October 2). What concerns me of merging or redirecting is that there aren't any significant third-party sources, the only usable link to support the book would be the baenebooks.com page. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 15 October 2012 (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.