Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candlelight Spells

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep.

Candlelight Spells
Delete as non-encyclopedic. There are lots of similar books of spells out there, and this one doesn't seem to have had any particular impact on the world. FreplySpang (talk) 03:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reviews at amazon seem to indicate that it's influential.  RickK 07:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which listing on Amazon you found. A sales ranking of 720,107 seems pretty poor to me.  It's one of over a dozen books published by the same author.  I can't find anything to distinguish this one.  Inclining toward delete for now.  Rossami (talk) 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rossami. Radiant_* 14:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep non-vanity books. Author also has a book ranked #104,415, must be reasonably notable in the crowded field of Spellcasting, Feasting, and Healing. Kappa 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your second sentence would seem to be an argument for keeping an article about the author (which I would support except that the current article is a copyvio). I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the comment to this article about the non-selling book.  Rossami (talk) 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that if an author is interesting to significant numbers of people, any books they might write can also be presumed to be interesting to them. Kappa 20:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't look notable. Tempshill 20:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. ("non-fiction"? I dunno about that. ;-)) RussBlau 19:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep non-vanity Citadel Press book T h e St ev e  19:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.