Talk:Neptune's Brood

Too soon

I'm redirecting this because right now this is just too soon for an article. Other than a mention in a press release via io9, there just isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to show that this book meets WP:NBOOK. Everything that is out there is either primary, unusable, or merely says that the book will release in 2013. There's no in-depth coverage of this book yet. Will there be? Maybe, but the publishing world is incredibly fickle when it comes to what you'd think they would or should cover. Hopefully we'll get some real coverage of the book in a few months as the release date comes closer. Until then, this should redirect to the author's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are more than 10 pages on google about the book. You say there are no reliable sources about the book, but there are summaries aplenty, from the auther himself - surely that is realiable info about the book content! This page is useful for people curious about the book, and does no harm by existing - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is space enough. This article makes no untrue claims, so it isn't misinformation - what is the purpose of deleting it, other than to feel powerful by destroying? Stross is an established author with a contract and a record of getting his books published - the assumption should surely be that the book will be published. From what I read about the publishing world, the book should be about done by now if it has a July release date. There is precedence for pages for not yet published books - see fx the page history of Memory of Light. If it turns out that the book isn't published, then sure go ahead and delete it, but this article does no harm in the mean time. Thue (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not deleting, just redirecting. The thing is, none of the sources out there are RELIABLE sources. The sources out there are predominantly ones posted by the author. WP:PRIMARY sources are completely unusable as far as establishing notability goes. No matter what the author posts, those sources will never show notability. The book has to receive coverage from independent secondary sources that is in-depth about the book. The sources must also be reliable, so a post on Bob's Book Review that reposts info from the author's site is unusable. Blogs in general are unusable as reliable sources unless they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority. By this I mean that they're the type of person that a scholarly paper would routinely cite as a source, which most bloggers aren't. Even if they were reliable sources, the posts would have to be more than just a restating of a press release or something the author said. Now as far as the book being published or not, be aware that Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. In all likelihood the book will be published. But merely being published does not establish notability. The book must have several reliable sources per WP:RS that establish notability. By the same theory, you can establish notability for a book or subject matter that doesn't yet officially exist. A book could never release, but if it's received enough coverage to establish enough notability beforehand then it can still merit an article. It's why books such as A Memory of Light or Winds of Winter can have articles despite neither of them actually having been released. Both have received enough coverage to where they'll be notable even if the books never actually release. As far as an article doing WP:NOHARM, we don't keep articles based on it not doing any harm. We keep articles because they pass notability guidelines. We can't make an exception for one article and not for another one. If we keep one article that is "likely to become notable" then we'd have to keep every book that hasn't yet released or any book that "hasn't yet met its audience". If we have a standard then it needs to be applied to all of them. But like I said, I didn't delete it. I redirected it until the book actually received coverage to pass notability guidelines. It's not a permanent move, just something that would be until it got news coverage. Since you un-redirected it, now I actually DO have to go through the deletion process in order to move to the next level. This actually runs the risk of the article history getting deleted rather than just redirected.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Restored

I've brought the article back (it's been 16 months since publication!) and made some additions, including quotes from three reviews for the sake of WP:NB, and uploaded the UK cover art.

However, I'm not trying too hard, and I leave it to others to spell out the plot summary, add references, and the like. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Scrivener

I have no idea why anyone other than Stross himself thinks the Scrivener bit is significant. I left it in when restoring the article. I suspect it was just random stuff added by someone who thought it might stave off deletion/merger back when the article was first created in blatant violation of WP:NB. I will be deleting it unless someone comes up with a good WP rationale for its presence. Choor monster (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neptune's Brood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413175850/http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/charles-stross-neptune-s-brood-cover-art-reveal to http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/charles-stross-neptune-s-brood-cover-art-reveal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)