Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mind's Eye (book)

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind's Eye (book)

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

Original research on unpublished book Racconish^Tk 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly OR. All but one of the statements in this article has been cited to information published by the author, and the remaining one, while taken from a statement on the author's mailing list (which is unfortunately not public) is also obvious from the text of the Amazon product description. If the remarks about Susan Barry being in the book count as OR, then by all means remove it. But WP:CRYSTAL only applies to unverifiable speculation, and this is a notable book published by a notable author, with multiple sources confirming its existence, subject matter and upcoming publication. So, very plainly, keep. --✶♏✶ 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notable unpublished is oxymoronic. Racconish^Tk 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no secondary or tertiary sources to support this, no significant coverage whatsoever. Maybe the article could be recreated once the book has been published but at the moment it's not notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball. this is what i found: [1] but this isnt a third party commentary on his book, but his giving a lecture on his current subject of interest. its a shame to have to delete then recreate, but hes not exactly michael jackson, who for any new release we would have commentary months in advance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The available information makes it clear that the book is midway through the publication process, so this isn't really "crystal ball" stuff. Furthermore Sacks is an important author, and all his books become bestsellers. The article should make it clearer that the book is forthcoming, but I don't see any good reason not to have an article here. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sacks is an important author and all his books become bestsellers is "a subjective judgment on whether people should take notice in the future", not "an objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already" (Cf. ATA#CRYSTAL). Racconish^Tk 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sachs is a sufficiently famous writer on this subject that any new book from him can be safely predicted to be notable. We don;t have to be perfect to avoid CRYSTAL, just very likely. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is not whether it shall be notable but whether we already have sources on the content other than primary or promotional, a recurring reason why "articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged" (Cf. WP:BK). Racconish^Tk 06:56, 12 April 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.