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 keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement of the Judoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable, unpublished future book. Being a novelization novel adapted from Doctor Who does not make it notable on its own, particularly when it hasn't been released yet. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Tagged for notability since August with no change. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. A future book without reviews should merit, at most, a short blurb in a general list, not its own article. RayAYang (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Officially announced release in a major franchise. It is not a novelisation, it is an original novel, and has been officially announced by the publisher. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being announced does not make it notable, nor does it being an "original novel" versus a novelization. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Announced, there is information, not a novelisation of an episode (that would be in the episode's article). There is no reason to delete it. SoWhy 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, being annouced does not meet WP:BK nor WP:N. Nor does it being an original novel versus a novelization (I was using novelization in the general sense, but I've adjusted my wording above since folks seemed confused by its use). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as a formally announced book in a notable series from notable author Colin Brake from notable publisher BBC Books. Books like this are why we have a ((Future book)) template. - Dravecky (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the notability for this book? Being announced doesn't make it notable. Being by a notable author doesn't either, and certainly who publishes does not. Being in a notable series also does not automatically make it notable. Where is the significant coverage of this book in reliable, third party sources? So far, all it has are publisher's announcements as sources and a borderline copyvio summary from one of those sources. The Future Book template is for books that are notable prior to their release with extensive coverage in reliable sources, same as future film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable information exists about a topic it is inconceivable we will not have an eventual article about. Given that, it is useful to provide the information available at present. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phil Sandifer — it's verifiable and will be notable. If deleted, it will inevitably be recreated after publication, so why bother deleting? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This isn't out till April. If it was out in November or December then the above would apply, but having an article with no references for almost 6 months is a bit much. 86.160.163.183 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing there are two references. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither source is usable. The first is a publishers announcements giving a plot summary only, and making no assertions otherwise. It could not be used as a 3rd party source even after publication. Even the BBC is in essence just an advance advertisement DGG (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The publisher's site establishes the basic facts about the book (author, title, publication date, etc.) and is perfectly usable as a primary source for verifiability. - Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Phil and Josiah, it will just be re-created again in a couple of months, seems like a waste of everyone's time to delete it and recreate it. --Lemming64 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 is in 6 months. And we are not sure the book is going to be notable. I generally am against with the creation of articles for future books based on TV series, future episodes, characters who appeared in the very last episode, etc. I think it's WP:RECENTISM and usually these articles provide poor information and sometimes inaccurate, so delete. I have no problem if the article is recreated in the future, after its release and when more evidence of notability is available. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a significant break with precedent if this book did not have an article upon publication. Off the top of my head, I can guarantee you a review in Doctor Who Magazine (not published by the BBC), which gets you halfway to even the most stringent application of WP:N. But more to the point, the precedent is that such articles exist. Given that, and given that there is genuine information in the article at present, I have no problem (and in fact appreciate) that we are providing that information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (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.