Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Witch Alone (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- A Witch Alone (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)
No assertion of notability--there are a lot of books. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unambiguous WP:ARTSPAM. Fails notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BK. And while we are on the subject, the author's wiki page also seems suspect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think the last two nominations were crossed with Ruth Warburton's series. Though it is not held at a national library and doesn't meet NBOOK as a result. The book itself is of small interest, but I don't see reviews in reliable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (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.