Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyland (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 keep. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Joyland (novel)

Joyland (novel) (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)

Doesn't appear to (yet) meet the notability guideline for books. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stephen King. This is one of those things that is highly likely to not only come out but will also be highly notable, but the fact is that there's just not enough information about this book at this time. The only information we have stems from the Neil Gaiman interview. No matter how many other articles we pull up and attach to the article, those articles are really only paraphrasing what Gaiman listed in his interview. Since it's likely to be a few years before it's released (I'm guestimating 2014) and all we really know about it is the title and very basic plot, it's just far too early to have an article for this book right now. It's likely to come out, but then it's also likely that King might also change the book partway through or drop the novel, which is something that many authors tend to do. Even if we look at the idea that everything King produces is notable (I'm of the mindset that it would be, as he's that influential), this book has yet to actually be finished and there's no depth of coverage for it. It's just far, far too soon and there's nothing in this article that couldn't be summed up in 1-2 sentences in King's article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• KEEP When King announces books they're finished and expected to be published in the next year. This was true of Under The Dome, 11/22/63 and The Wind Through The Keyhole. There is little doubt this will be published. This is hardly crystal ball as this will be published in 2013. If you delete this page you may as well delete Dr. Sleep as well since it's also an upcoming book with a publication date of 2013.TurtleMelody (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for pointing that book out, but the difference is that we have just slightly enough to warrant keeping it. Most of the articles are pulled from what little King has released, but there are more sources and information than is in Joyland. Besides, saying "other stuff exists" isn't a good argument. Dr. Sleep's sources are pretty small, so there's still enough reason for someone to nominate it for deletion, as most of what we do have is pulled from one or two appearances and mentions by King. As far as "crystal ball" goes with Joyland, what that generally means is that we have no concrete proof that things will turn out as they've been stated. The Dark Tower series is a good example of crystal balling: after the fourth book there was talk about the next book in the series getting released rather soon, yet it didn't get published until about six years later. There was even talk about King not even finishing the series, yet of course he did. That's why we can't say that something is guaranteed to be released or that it's a "sure thing" because quite frankly, we don't know what's going on in King's mind. He might be finished and be completely happy with it or he could decide to toss half of it and re-write it, making the release date sometime in 2015. He could decide at the last moment that he's completely unhappy with all of it and re-write the entire thing. It could just fall between the cracks in favor of another book and become just another footnote in his bibliography. The point is, we can't say that something is sure to come out and that it's sure to become notable. Right now there's nothing for Joyland beyond information taken from the Gaiman interview and that's not likely to change for at least another year.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stephen King per Tokyogirl79. Not against recreation when a substantial amount of information becomes available. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect I think for now it would be better as a redirect, but when it comes out and is notable, maybe consider recreation User Talk:W.D. 08:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect per Tokyogirl. This is a working title for a novel in progress. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Can I withdraw this? A few new refs were published today, which I think help the article meet WP:NB and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. (I was until recently User:Hysteria18.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep any new novel by Stephen King is notable, even before publication. It is better when it has a definite title, but the CNN & NYT references establish that. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Since the original nomination there has been more information become available, some of which has been incorporated into the article. BillyJack193 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep As more information is becoming available now, with even the ISBN and a firm publication date, there's no more need for this. Articles with less information exist. Jmj713 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Improved now. Also, refs are added and the article looks much much better now. Problem is addressed and thus keep. →TSU ^tp* 16:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it possible that Wikipedians are knee-jerk reactionaries? There weren't enough references so it's nominated for deletion. A few days later more articles spring up and it's suddenly notable. So this whole process was a waste of time. Congrats Wikipedia bureaucracy! TurtleMelody (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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.