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 redirect to Ruth Manning-Sanders. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Book of Magic Horses

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Each of the books fails each WP:NBOOK criterion quite clearly, none of the articles contained even asserts notability. The series as a whole just might warrant an article, but not each book. The first book in the series is not bundled in this AFD, as it is just possible that as the first of a series, it's notable - though not in my opinion. Storkk (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Book of Ghosts and Goblins

A Book of Princes and Princesses

A Book of Magical Beasts

A Book of Devils and Demons

A Book of Charms and Changelings

A Book of Ogres and Trolls

A Book of Sorcerers and Spells

A Book of Magic Animals

A Book of Monsters

A Book of Enchantments and Curses

A Book of Kings and Queens

A Book of Marvels and Magic

A Book of Spooks and Spectres

A Book of Cats and Creatures

A Book of Heroes and Heroines

A Book of Magic Adventures

Delete Most of the stories are retellings of standard fairy-tales. The tables-of-contents with links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles are interesting, but I think Wikipedia is not the best place for that. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Ruth Manning-Sanders, which includes a bibliography listing all these books, or delete if you don't fancy creating all those redirects. I don't see evidence of notability of the books, and the book articles don't contain any critical comment, information on their writing, or other things that make a worthwhile book article. Although Manning-Sanders' article is itself not great she's in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography[1] and almost certainly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Ruth Manning-Sanders until there is some content (from third party sources, reviews, etc). Chapter listing of the books is not suitable content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.