Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gatehouse 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   merge to Trixie Belden. v/r - TP 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Gatehouse Mystery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay → Σ  τ  c. 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is a book in the well-known Trixie Belden series of children's books. Just because it reads like an essay doesn't mean it must be deleted. Rather, it simply means that it needs to be rewritten. I've gotten the ball rolling, and a quick-and-dirty google search shows that it should be easy enough to find reliable sources and establish notability such that the requirements of WP:V can be satisfied. Agent 86 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This article doesn't establish notability or reliable sources. The only "reference" is to the book itself. The external links don't do anything to help the article either. I'm sorry, but unless someone can magically pull sources for this article out of midair, and establish a little more notability, I have to say delete. NOTE: My response may change at any time if more sources are added. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 02:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. The article is a stub - a work in progress - and Squeamish Ossifrage's comment pretty much rebuts your "vote". Agent 86 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is my reply a vote? I used the word vote at the end to avoid any confusion. Also, please show me where books 1, 2, and the rest of the series are on Wikipedia. Also, the article needs more sources to establish notability and reliability. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Book 1. Book 2.  I agree that this article, and the others, need more and better sourcing.  But if there is evidence that that can be done, sourcing is an editorial issue.  Deletion is reserved for situations where the topic lacks reliable sources, not merely where the article does so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you found the first two books, and I can see that there are a few (2 or 3) other books with articles. However, this article needs to be worked on and sourced more before it is open to the "Google-searching public" in the articlespace. The ONLY sources in the article so far are the book itself (a primary source, which will not establish notability), and two articles. The recent (2003) one mentions the book once. This mention is not even in support of ANYTHING in the article. The mention mentions that the book is one of four that will be re-released. I do not see this information anywhere in the article. A totally reliable well-written source about kidney beans holds no water in an article about space travel. The final reference is an 11-year-old's opinion on the book (a "letter to the editor"). The first one is not acceptable for notability, but is acceptable (marginally) for the article, the second one is barely acceptable as it doesn't support anything currently in the article, and the third is not a reliable source (would you personally listen to a child's opinion on something? Have you ever seen an child's opinion as a reference in an encyclopædia?). You say that the topic does have reliable sources for the information in it, please feel free to provide some. Otherwise, I still believe this article should be deleted. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Book #3 in a 39 book series of well-known children's books has a good chance of being notable.  Children's books from 1951 might not have sourcing readily available online.  But in this case, here is a place to start, with discussion of this book beginning on the very first page.  There's also some (admittedly limited) newspaper coverage of the reprinting of the series, including this one.  This one may also be promising, but I actually don't have access to it from where I'm editing at the moment to confirm. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Week Keep – Many sources are available, but paywalled. Here's a couple of sources:, . Also, the basis for this nomination, consisting of one word "essay" is very inaccurate, as the article does not read like an essay at all. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been considerably shortened since the nomination. However, my comment above still stands as an issue. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: What is the grounds for the nomination, now?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Original grounds were that it was an essay, but I believe now it would qualify under WP:Notability and/or WP:Verifiability. Right after nomination someone drastically changed the article, but the issues I discussed above still stand. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I see now.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's a bit disingenuous, gwickwire. I admitted right up front at the start of this discussion that I edited the article to address the one-word reason for which the article was nominated. It read like an essay, I changed it from an essay. Not only that, it's in the edit summaries for the article. AFAIC, this was nominated for deletion when some clean-up templates were all that was needed, and AfD shouldn't be used for clean-up. Yes, the change was "drastic", if by that you mean "significant", but it's what should have been done rather than nominate it for deletion. It is also disingenuous to ignore the fact that your concerns have been addressed several times over. As others have noted, books from the 1950s are less likely to have on-line sources, and the real-world sources have been noted. The indicia of verifiability and notability are there, and the fact the article is still more or less a stub only means there's lots of room for expansion by editors. Agent 86 (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And since we're talking about your disingenuous statements, I'll answer your question, "Why is my reply a vote?", above. It's because you originally wrote, "My vote may change at any time if more sources are added." Going back and revising your original statement as you did here and then challenging me was far from honest. Agent 86 (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed that word from vote in the same edit I asked you that question. I used the word vote originally to avoid any confusion. And if we could avoid spending comments talking about my word choice, and calling me dishonest, I'd appreciate it. Nominating something for deletion is just that, a nomination, for the reason that someone thinks it should be deleted. The nomination reason may not be valid now, but that's no reason to assume the article should automatically stay. If someone wants to close this AfD and have me create a new one, please feel free. Otherwise, let's continue this discussion. I believe my comment above clears those sources of any relevance/reliability that they may have had. I noticed that in your last edit, you either missed or did not reply to my above comment. I'd appreciate it if I could get a response from you to the issues I presented above. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: potentially notable, but might make more sense to simply have a page with plot summaries of the entire series, with individual pages for any individually special books (if any).--Milowent • hasspoken  21:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * merge into a single page for the books in the series, which should be the default way of handling these, unless there's unusual and special notability for any one of them.  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per DGG. The fact that the series may be notable does not necessarily mean that each of the books in the series is sufficiently notable to justify an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based upon comments by others, that there is just as much dead-tree source material establishing notability for each of these books as there is for any episode of any modern-day TV show that warrants its own article. It's just harder to find than lazily relying on what one can google without exerting any real effort. It strikes me that there is significant bias against these because their notability is in the past, which does not diminish under wiki policy. Agent 86 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. The series is notable, but I don't think each individual book in the series is.  Appreciate the problem of sourcing for older books, but what are we expecting dead tree sources to say?  "It was a reasonably popular children's book...."? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're conflating "notability" and "popularity", but even that criterion is worth noting. As noted in the notability guidelines, a more common sense approach needs to be taken with older books, including whether it has been recently reprinted (it has, after a long hiatus), the fame that the book enjoyed in the past (no doubt about that). I've also added two new sources from established literary publications (a journal and a magazine), which help establish the notability of this book, one of six written by the series' creator, compared to many of the subsequent volumes. Agent 86 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect?) The series is definitely notable but individual books do not seem to have sufficient notability. This should also be done with the other books in the series that have articles as they are all just plot summaries with no references.(The Secret of the Mansion, The Red Trailer Mystery and The Mystery off Old Telegraph Road )Zlqchn (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2011 (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.