Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery


 * 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. The article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG andy (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The only source I can open is a glorified blog review, the others are either dead links or behind paywalls. No external evidence of notability, this seems to be one of a formula series via what looks like a budget or vanity publisher, and it's not even notable enough to be linked from the article of its (borderline WP:N failing) author. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  15:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB, any info worthy of salvaging could be incorporated into author article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com: From Publishers Weekly: "Filled with juicy scandal, delightfully eccentric characters and 21 tempting recipes from Cream Cheese Frosting to Lemon Fluff Jell-O, bestseller Fluke's 10th Hannah Swenson mystery (after 2007's Key Lime Pie Murder) centers on a family reunion that turns deadly. Hannah's friend Marge Beeseman is thrilled when her brother, Gus Klein, who disappeared from Lake Eden, Minn., more than 30 years earlier, unexpectedly arrives. At the big family party, everyone wonders how the elegant, well-dressed Gus heard about the reunion and why he came back. When Gus fails to show up for the group photo the next morning, Hannah finds his body on a pavilion floor—with ants crawling around pieces of her carrot cake nearby. Hannah's malcontented cat, Moishe, and flickers of romance with her devoted dentist and the no-less attentive local police chief add spice to the subsequent murder investigation. The ending will leave cozy fans gasping for breath. (Mar.)" From Booklist: "Daily life’s many preoccupations engage Hannah Swensen’s attention. And life in Lake Eden, Minnesota, fairly brims with church activities, cooking, family gatherings, and the demands of a mischievous cat. Moreover, Hannah runs a bakery, and her carrot cake is famed across the region. A piece of that cake shows up one day beside the corpse of her business partner’s uncle Gus. It’s up to Hannah to find out who did him in, and her sleuthing techniques are tested to the limit as she discovers many potential killers who each had good reason to want Gus out of the way. Recipes appear throughout the text, tied to plot developments. There’s even a culinary mystery: What’s the secret sauce on those tasty salmon cakes? The popularity of Fluke’s earlier food-focused mysteries will undoubtedly raise demand for this newest title even beyond its expected audience in the Upper Midwest. --Mark Knoblauch" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Here is another review:<ol><li> The review notes: "'Carrot Cake Murder' by Joanne Fluke The Genre: Cozy mystery. The Premise: In little Lake Eden, Minn., amateur sleuth Hannah Swensen, owner of The Cookie Jar bakery, finds a dead body, an ice pick and two pieces of her 'infamous' (that's from the jacket flap) carrot cake nearby. Hannah is on the case! The Clues: The cover is shiny as a glazed doughnut, the drawing of the carrot cake is cute, and the single line at the bottom, 'A Hannah Swensen Mystery with Recipes,' practically reaches out and pinches the reader's cheek. The Buy: There's something reassuring in the notion that even if the plot doesn't hold together, the casserole recipe on Page 190 probably will."</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BKCRIT criteria #1 per the reviews above. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Joanne_Fluke. These books are not notable outside of their long-running series (fourteen at last count), currently defaulting to the author. Closer should deal similarly with Devils Food Cake Murder, of the same series and which has sat unimproved for over two years. (boldly redirected myself) Side-note: my eyes go all squinty at the coincidence of the word "cozy" showing up in two different boilerplate reviews from different publishers. I can almost see the brown paper bags of money sliding under the table...<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would oppose a redirect. The article currently contains two sections: "plot summary" and "reception". A merge/redirect would be unable to preserve this information without being undue weight in Joanne Fluke's article. Because this book passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, it should be kept as a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability established as per comments above (squinty eyes aside, but I hope you do feel better PAX). HullIntegrity  \ talk / 01:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're all alike: "cozy" mysteries...with recipes. It's a nifty little niche market the author has carved out, but I think it's a stretch to assume that any particular novel is a stand-out. (I would guess that all of the books have similar reviews, etc., but I think having an article for each one would be a poor idea given the sheer number of them and their inherent similarity. We don't even have an article for the series yet.)
 * Comment I see your point. But is anyone writing an article on the series? Ironically, the originating author seems to have worked on AfD's but is now "retired".  HullIntegrity  \ talk / 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I categorized the series on the author's article page the other day (before !voting redirect), with said author's page being almost empty aside from book lists. IOW, there's not enough material here to warrant separate articles, and I believe it an example of mismatched emphasis to assume more notability upon a generic series entrant that for the the author themselves. A case could be made if Carrot Cake were a widely raved-about piece of literature taking the world by storm, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. It's just a run-of-the-mill entry.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia grows in weird ways. Sometimes, we just have to let it grow and see where it goes. (That sounded really Hippy, but I worked in the alliteration and assonance). HullIntegrity  \ talk / 00:15, 4 March 2015 (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.