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. A new encyclopedic article may be created with sources if the book becomes notable after it is released. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNAFU ANTHOLOGY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This page is for a book release, and matches the many thousands of other book pages on Wiki. Gnbraun (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was clearly made by someone involved with releasing the book, and reads like a press release. It likely doesn't meet notability guidelines, and seems to serve more of a promotional purpose for the book than informational purpose. 70.198.36.165 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I fixed up this page. Ansh666 15:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Response — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonymUpshaw (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the publisher isn't notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Do any of the authors have their own Wikipedia page? It can be tempting to make Wikipedia pages for things one has created or is launching, but the notability standard is pretty practical and makes sense: if people unrelated to the content producers care enough to make a page, and can use legitimate media sources (instances in which notable content producers have commented on a thing) as citations, then it deserves a page.

One clear benchmark test is if the the only citation is to the website of the thing releasing the content that the page is about. If news articles aren't being written about a thing, and the only person who feels compelled to write an article are people involved with the product or release itself, that's self-evidently not notable.

This isn't an offense, however. The notability standards for Wikipedia are very high. Lots of very popular and successful things are not yet listed on Wikipedia. Not being notable enough to have a page that isn't deleted shouldn't be taken as an affront. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't really work as a marketing method as people look up things they already know about or stumble onto topics adjacent to ones they are researching. Nobody who doesn't already know about this is going to come across this page, and then go buy the book. HarmonymUpshaw (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See WP:NBOOK#Not_yet_published_books, in particular, this quote: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." If this book becomes notable in the future, Wikipedia will resurrect the article. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass our notability guidelines. Article is not encyclopedic in any way. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (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.