Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a list of other authors which are already mentioned on the main page, there is little point in creating another Blavatsky article for the sake of it. Ash (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Has a mention on the Blavatsky page, and that's all the book needs due to notability. Right now this article is bootstrapping its notable to her. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete \//\ - 09:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator's rationale is incorrect, this is not a content fork, this is a biography. enough independent sources exist to show notability. Edward321 (talk)
 * I would be interested to see the independent sources demonstrating notability. In Google Scholar I only find two matches, in journals which would list any reprinted book on spiritual matters, and on Google News I find one mention in the Library Journal, again a publication in the business of listing any such publication. These sources are independent but do not address notability as defined by WP:BK. The point of the nomination is that unless notability can be demonstrated for the book rather than just for Blavatsky, then the article is a redundant content fork.—Ash (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Helena Blavatsky as it fails WP:BK.Click23 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources per Ash. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Book is not notable at all. NBeale (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not all books are notable, and this article has zero sources. Bearian (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. Famous topic, sure, but not a famous book. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - almost an ad for the book. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:17, 3 December 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.