Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gumazing Gum Girl!


 * 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 kept as improved. bd2412 T 21:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Gumazing Gum Girl!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was pushed into mainspace multiple times. No sourcing to show this is a notable series independent of its author. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep - the only coverage I could find was from a site called Laughing Place and this from Publisher's Weekly. Laughing Place looks like routine coverage and the PW article has one line that boils down to "this book exists, and it's about gum girl". I'm not sure a redirect to author Rhode Montijo is worthwhile, as that article doesn't seem to meet GNG either. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * updated my opinion per the additional sources below. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is some notable topic here as I had a little more luck than Argento finding sources. Kirkus reviewed books 1 & 2. SLJ reviewed book 2 as did Booklist. Publisher's Weekly reviewed book 1. SLJ also put it on a few different lists of diverse books. It does get enough coverage by enough different children's literature sources to add up to notability for the series, though perhaps not for each entry, which is OK because this AfD is about the series. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, it'd be better if those sources were put in the article as that is why it was not approved at AFC multiple times, and pushed back to draft as "undersourced, incubate at draftspace". AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand why given those sources it was not approved multiple times at AfC. That is a reasonable outcome for AfC. It doesn't mean that it's a reasonable outcome at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my first instinct when I saw it was to delete without prejudice against recreation just because of the current state of the article. "The Gumazing Gum Girl! was going to became an internet phenomena"? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WP:TNT or USERFY. Newly created WP:PROMO with no sources. Article creator User:Fiona Burks should write a proper, properly sourced article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, hey, some of the really really experienced editors above ... no snapples!, yes the article is very promotional, and references are lacking, and its been rejected at create an article but we should be allowing for the newness/inexperience of the editor who created the article (has made less than 50 edits mostly this article), looking at ' talkpage we have:- a couple of lines from said editor, an AFC rejection, a Teahouse invite (YAAY!), a problem with a pikkie notice, another afc rejection, a notice that article has been moved to draft, another afc rejection, another image problem notice, another afc rejection, and finally a nomination of afd notice, isn't wikipedia a welcoming place!:)) ps. i acknowledge that some messages did included links to some of WP policies/helpful pages but have also left a welcome kitten message on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I added enough book reviews, coverage to keep the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you add a reception section that details these reviews? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep well sourced article about a notable subject. There are some improvements and good finds from the participants here on the afd.  Lubbad85   (☎) 18:59, 21 June 2019 (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.