Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"G" Is for Gumshoe


 * 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

&quot;G&quot; Is for Gumshoe

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

Does not assert notability for book. Only the author links there. Prod removed with little improvement Reywas92 Talk  19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep a best-selling novel key in the career of a major US mystery novelist. Easily referenced and expanded. While I admit the article is not ideal, improvement and expansion are reasons to tag or edit the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - also expand don't delete. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dravecky; I would think that Sue Grafton is notable enough for all of her alphabet books to be notable. Just about any book that was a best seller could probably be expanded beyond a stub. (By the way, is there an echo in here?) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, is there an echo in here? So far. K is for Keep per TenPound, Dumbot, and Dravecky.  Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An article being orphaned is not a reason for deletion, and the article was improved after removal of the PROD tag, but it doesn't have to be. --Canley (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Any bestselling novel, and Sue Grafton's pretty much all have been, can find mutliple book reviews discussing the work in itself, usually extensively. Can easily be shown to be notable, even if the article itself does not yet demonstrate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it is much better, but the book itself does not count as a reference.  Reywas92 Talk  15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not be confused by similar titles. "G" Is for Grafton, a critical review of the works of Sue Grafton, is not the same as the mystery novel "G" Is for Gumshoe. - Dravecky (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And in any case, yes, the book would count as a reference. It is only for WP:N that we discount primary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, references suggest it's a notable book. --Pixelface (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, very short-sighted nomination for an obviously notable book. AFD is not cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 11 March 2008 (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.