Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic and Other Misdemeanors


 * 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. The Helpful  One  15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Magic and Other Misdemeanors

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

Pure plot summary, fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Article provides no context. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, merely a plot summary without any context or references. J I P  | Talk 09:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which sounds like a reason to improve, not delete... Hobit (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no context. Maybe grounds for speedy deletion? Bart133 t c @ 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep Article fails NOT#PLOT, but subject is probably notable.  is a brief review behind a wall,  lists 4 Sacramento Bee articles that at least mention the book (none currently on their site).  is a trivial mention, but adds a bit. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Links Hobit notes above don't appear to meet the notability criteria for books. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They do seem to meet WP:N however. We can't see the Sac. Bee articles, but they do appear to be in-depth coverage of the topic which would indicate notability.  thoughts? Hobit (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for two weeks WP:NOT is not a deletion criteria; the article may be improvable. If sources cannot be found to fix the article, Delete as non-notable. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this has been up a couple weeks, and the evidence of notability is very slim. Delete as non-notable, however, do note that WP:NOT is still not a reason to delete: An ongoing review is reasonably firm on that. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Merge anything mergeable and redirect to The Sisters Grimm, as it is book five of this apparently award winning series by award putatively winning author Michael Buckley.   Dloh  cierekim  16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, not convinced of notability of series or author, so delete.  Dloh  cierekim  18:00, 19 May 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.