Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Chip Cookie Murder


 * 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   merge to Hannah Swensen Mysteries.  MBisanz  talk 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Chocolate Chip Cookie Murder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book lacking ghits and gnews or substance. red dog six (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon listing shows three independent reviews. The book was originally published in 1999, so that may be a little too early for much online coverage (at least outside of archives). If not kept as a standalone article, it should be redirected to the article on the book series. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the reviews and found a mention of CCCM in a book about cooking in fiction, although it's relatively general in tone somewhat. The reviews are "just" trades, but there hasn't been any definitive argument yet that trades do not count towards notability. There have been people from both sides that argue for and against them, but not any official ruling that has been set in stone. So really, this could go either way at this point. Part of me thinks it might be better as a merge and redirect, though. Everything that is in here is pretty much in the main series article, which also suffers from a lack of sources or real world context (impact, reviews, etc). Assuming that there are other reviews out there that cannot be found before the AfD closes, we can always redirect and then un-redirect when/if they are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or redirect; book was on a minor best-seller chart (Independent Mystery Booksellers Association Bestseller), according to St. Paul Pioneer Press, and there is enough coverage of the series to support the article it has... but much of that coverage has an extra push toward this book (as the first in the series, as the source of her cookie recipe). (Hey, a brief review in Chicago Tribune... by a 13 year old!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Hannah Swensen Mysteries (and delete since it does not stand alone as an article). Shii (tock) 07:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be "merge and redirect", because at a minimum the titles of the books described in the article on that series of books are each valid search terms, and we must preserve the contributors' history of the original article if any content of substance is merged. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NBOOK.  Rcsprinter  (rap)  @ 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I second Rcsprinter123 on this m'encarta (t) 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Merge and redirect, but leave the article with its history. The reason I suggest that is because it's entirely possible that sources exist that aren't on the internet or are otherwise hard to find. I'm certainly finding things that suggest that there was more coverage when this released, but I'm not finding the actual coverage. That's sort of par for the course for pre-Internet niche books, though. For right now the best course of action would be to merge the pertinent data and redirect to the main series page. Most of the stuff I'm finding talk about the series as a whole, although they do specifically mention this title.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (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.