Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Goddess


 * 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, there is nothing to merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Red Goddess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, promotional. Declined PROD. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Notability – Why? What vague suggestion does it even attempt to make? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried searching for information on this book and its publisher, but couldn't find enough to show that either needs an article. The most I found was this interview with a magazine and another interview with the publishers of the Witches' Almanac. That's a decent start, but not enough to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no true problem with the editor that created the article userfying it if she so wished, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Scarlet Imprint - This is part of a specialized market for high-end expensive art books. According to a reviewer on Amazon "There are versions of _The Red Goddess_ selling for over a thousand dollars". They are limited edition, collectible, often hand crafted. They are as much works of art as books. There is also a consumer-grade paperback version for the curious. Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of sourcing, only brief mentions (the Fine Books being a good source). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and Scarlet Imprint. A book produced in an edition of a mere 156 copies is cearly NN.  The publisher page reads like WP:ADVERT.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a world called "fine books" in which books costs upwards of $1000 or more, become collectors items, handmade letter press and bindings, etc.. they are basically works of art, no different than limited runs of other works of art. They also made a $20 paperback version for the curious but that is more than 156 copies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't about fine books (I agree that such bindings exist), it's about a lack of independent sources commenting on the book. Has anyone reviewed it? Have bibliophiles or occultists paid notice to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I responded to Peterkingiron. Who said the number of books published was a sign that it was not notable, which is an incorrect heuristic for fine books. It's the right vote for the wrong reason. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 22 August 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.