Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer's Spell


 * 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   speedy delete. Mkdw talk 05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Engineer's Spell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable novel, no references, rather promotional in tone (self-publicity?) (I tagged this for deletion a couple of years ago, but the PROD was removed by the author and I forgot about it. It came back to me attention as there is now an article on one of the authors, also subject to an afd.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As with the article for the author that is up for AfD, there is nothing that amounts to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and therefore article fails WP:GNG. Publicity or not, this article falls short of notability and should be deleted. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Possibly by speedy. The second half is a quotation from the book jacket, and the fist half is probably from something similar. In any case, the book is not even in worldcat, which tis the basic criterion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to be notable. Uberaccount (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy as a promotion and copyvio, but in case it doesn't get deleted that way I want to voice my argument for deletion as well. There is no notability and it doesn't help that the article makes claims that are pretty easily debunked, such as the original editor claiming that the book invented the RPG setting that uses an "unusual blending of technology and magic". Yeah. No. That's been going on since forever (or at least before 2007, which is when this was supposedly first published), so I doubt seriously that this is a factual claim. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:29, 19 May 2013 (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.