Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candyfloss (novel)


 * 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. JForget 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Candyfloss (novel)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable novel. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, with stipulations Who are you to decide whether a novel is notable or not? I do think that the article needs revising; more in-depth analysis is needed, as well as information about the printing of the book (ISBN, publisher, year published, etc.). If revisions are made, the article should be left up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylando91 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All novels on Wikipedia have to meet the notability guidelines set by WP:NB. Cheers,  I 'mperator 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Second Google hit for "Candyfloss wilson" is a Sunday New York Times Book Review review of the book. In practice, being reviewed in the NYTimes Book Review demonstrates notability for a book (it's not absolute proof, but the odds against the Times being the only substantial coverage are about 100,000:1).  The Times also says that Wilson is the most library-borrowed author in the UK, beating out Rowling (probably because she's written many more books, and because more Rowling readers run out and buy the books, but that's not too pertinent to notability). Notable author, significant review of book, article that reads like something I'd written coming out of anaesthesia. Article can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) .Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This book has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, the School Library Journal and the Horn Book Magazine — as well as the New York Times, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz mentioned above. It therefore passes criteria #1 of WP:BK. (As Jacqueline Wilson is not only the most borrowed author, but also a former Children's Laureate and a Dame, you could even make a case for her books passing criteria #5.) You may also find it useful/interesting to know that this book was a bestseller and had sold over 130,000 copies by September 2006; also, this article explains her inspiration for the book... all real-world information that could be added to this article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per KittyRainbow. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability.--Judo112 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.