Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watercolor Fairies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. plicit 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolor Fairies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this is the specific book this article is about. I can't find any sources on this book at all (other than places to buy it), for a fail of WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found one book review:
    1. Buchhaus, Erich (March–April 2005). "Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies" (PDF). Cape Librarian. Vol. 49, no. 2. Department of Cultural Affairs & Sport, Government of the Western Cape. p. 37. ISSN 0008-5790. EBSCOhost 17564578. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The review notes:

      RICHE, David and FRANKLIN, Anna

      Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies.- Search P., 2004.

      An imaginative and lavishly-illustrated guide to painting fairies in watercolour produced with easy-to-follow step-by-step illustrations and photographs. The author provides an outline of basic watercolour tools and techniques, revealing how to create a fairy world and various types of fairies. Included is an in-depth look at the techniques of four well-known fairy artists as well as twenty more contemporary fairy/fantasy artists. The subject is well presented and practical, and is likely to be inspiring to readers who wish to do their own illustrations.

    Cunard (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for sleuthing! This review is on the light side, but I think it could count for 50% of an NBOOK pass, pending the other 50%. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a link to the review Cunard found to the article. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 07:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time before a consensus is arrived at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 2 July 2023 (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.