Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub 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 delete. Most contributors believe that the sourcing is still insufficient for the subject to escape crystal ball status. Sandstein 07:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Stephen King & Peter Straub novel[edit]

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

Unnotable "untitled" work that hasn't even been started yet. Purely a rumor mill with three sourced sentences that do not show any notability to this purported, non-existent work. Not even a worthy redirect title. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously, there are independent sources stating this work will be written and there has been since 2004. In most cases "Untitled", etc are very bad articles that need to be deleted, so I would propose renaming this one Talisman 3, but as far as being properly sourced, I think this belongs.BillyJack193 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be written is not written yet. Either could be killed in a car accident tomorrow. Wikipedia does not operate on future notability for works not even started yet, nor do we generally do placeholders for "untitled" works (and as yet, its real title is not confirmed). Any mention of the potential sequel is already in the existing books articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response is simple. Please check out this page.BillyJack193 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you have 24 hours from this time to prove to me that the year 2011 will happen or I will propose every article such as that one (2011 in sports, music, etc) for deletion. The book has been mentioned by reliable sources. I am sure there are thousands of articles on here about albums that have not yet been recorded. This article has been here since October 2004 and yet the album will not be released until 2011. And all of it was recorded well after 2004 and some is yet to be recorded. Or check out the artice for this film set to be released in 2012 and with no sources whatsoever and no word that filming has begun. It is general Wikipedia procedure to begin an article when a project is announced. While you are correct that it is generally good procedure not to name articles "Untitled ----" or "--------'s 5th studio album", in this case there are enough reliable sources for an article to exist.BillyJack193 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia. Pages of this sort usually take the naming convention "[name of artist]'s [nth] studio album". There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJack193 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, absurdly ridiculous. Everyone on this planet could die and time will move on. That is a basic fact of life. As for the actual articles, if they are unsourced and there is no significant coverage of them to meet WP:CRYSTAL, by all means propose them for deletion. Two minor mentions in reliable sources does not make THIS untitled book exists (and Twitter is not RS), nor does it guarantee it existence. Again, the existence of other inappropriate articles, as you yourself have pointed out, is NOT a valid reason to keep this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to look for some more sources tomorrow. IF I fail to find them, I may change my vote. I see your point and I apologize for my rude response.BillyJack193 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We have articles for other upcoming and unwritten books. There are two such for Stephen King alone, as well as other authors. They are all sourced, so I don't see any problems with this. There's no crystal-balling, if the article makes it clear that this book is only in the planning stages, but since enough media coverage exists, I think an article is valid. I just added another recent mention of this book to the article; I'm sure if additional sources are needed, more could be added. The book will very likely get written; if not, the article could still remain as a document of what the authors were saying and planning about it. Since there has been talk about this proposed novel going back nine years, I thought it was important to chronicle just that fact. Jmj713 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Straub on Twitter said that planning will begin in about a year. Not writing. The buzz is not really significant yet. If kept, I would rename to reflect that it should be the third book of a particular trilogy. "Untitled novel" is too imprecise.--74.58.176.70 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz not significant? There have been mentions going back to 2001, and now that it's been confirmed to start within a year, I'm sure more updates will be made throughout the year. Jmj713 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rare non-musical example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"any future subject for which a name is not yet known and no verifiable information from reliable sources yet exists" - but there are sources. Jmj713 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HAMMMER[time]. "The two authors should restart their collaboration in late 2010.[1]" Well then. The confirmation of a new book is not an indication of notability in particular since every one of those confirmations are coming from the authors, which is sort of inherent, and again, the point of TenPoundHammer's reasoning. I fully adopt that here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this applies here. Jmj713 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (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.