Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bone Clocks (2nd nomination)

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bone Clocks

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

This was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review, where the outcome was to relist. I am listing this as an administrative function only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 11:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This is my first and only Wikipedia article, so I apologize for any mistakes. I originally believed there were enough sources commenting on the book's upcoming release to merit the creation of the article. Currently, it is possible to pre-order the novel from stores such as Amazon and Waterstones and there have even been some reviews from reputable outlets (e.g. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-mitchell/the-bone-clocks/; http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4000-6567-7). Additionally, a cover has been released for it (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/david-mitchell/bone-clocks.htm) and it has been long-listed for the Man Booker Prize 2014 (http://www.themanbookerprize.com/books/bone-clocks). I hope this provides sufficient grounds for considering it notable and proves the contents of the article is not mere speculation regarding the future. -- Julian Dremot talk 12:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a novel that yet to be published it has sufficient reputable sources to make it very clear that it is notable. Given Mitchell's track record its a no-brainer that as soon as it is published it will be reviewed by a large number of publications. Deleting as
WP:TOOSOON is not really appropriate: at worst it should be userfied.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep In addition to the book's addition to the 2014
Man Booker Prize list found by 86.45.76.161 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26#The Bone Clocks, I found that The Bone Clocks has received a review from the Publishers Weekly:
"Fiction Book Review: The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell. Random, $30 (640p) ISBN 978-0-8129-9473-5". Publishers Weekly. 2014-06-02. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
Julian Dremot has found another review from the Kirkus Reviews:
"The Bone Clocks Kirkus Review". Kirkus Reviews. 2014-06-17. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
The concern in the previous AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bone Clocks ("Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements") no longer applies.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep pretty much per all of the above. Like many other forms of creative work, books often receive GNG-satisfying coverage before their official release. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pointless to delete something which if not notable now will almost unquestionably be notable in a month. Waste of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Even being on the long list for the Booker prize marks it out from the 1000s of NN novels published each year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 5 August 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.