Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Runaway Bride (Nancy Drew)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) --moreno oso (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The result was no consensus. The argument that the book is not notable due to a lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources is balanced by the argument that the book is notable due to being written by a notable author - even if that notable author is a group pseudonym. Fences &amp;  Windows  14:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Runaway Bride (Nancy Drew)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested proposed deletion - does not meet WP:NB or WP:N - not enough significant coverage, and I don't consider the notability inherited from Carolyn Keene. Claritas (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Carolyn Keene would probably turn over in her grave at the "Pen Name Cemetery" for this one, which is about part of a series of games. Wow, Template:Nancy Drew has to be seen to be believed -- all the titles in there are computer games, as if that was the only part of the franchise.  A sign of our changing times, I guess, but in the 20th century, millions of girls and a lesser number of boys would read Nancy Drew books, those things that were made of paper and had lots of words.   Mandsford 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable to this discussion. This book was first published by Simon Pulse (Simon & Schuster) in 1994 and has been remained in print since then. In 2001, this popular novel was re-published and distributed by Simon & Schuster Children's Books as a Nancy Drew "2-in-1" along with the also popular Case #66: Tall, Dark and Deadly. Inniverse (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is indeed not applicable, but there's no indication that this work meets notability guidelines. Claritas (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Just one of a long line of chain books, without any individual notability as demonstrable by significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether or not it is in print nor claimed but unproven "popularity" -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google book search shows its mentioned in other publications. I look through the template and don't see how this is different than dozens of other articles for books in this series.  Destroy one, then go ahead and nominate the rest?  What would be gained by that?  Wikipedia is not paper, there plenty of room for this.  These books all sell quite well, which is why they have been published continuously for 80 years now.   D r e a m Focus  02:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream, that's an all or nothing fallacy. I think we should judge each article on each Nacy Drew book against the relevant guideline (WP:NB), and if the article fails it, it should be deleted. The mentions of the book you've found are completely trivial - there's no significant coverage. Claritas (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * weak Keep according to our  usual rules, all the individual books in this series are notable; whether we ought to have an article on each is another matter--we need to separate notability for the purpose of detailed encyclopedic content  coverage from notability  for the purpose of being appropriate for having a separate article--but at present the only distinction is whether someone wants to write the article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BK #5, notability of the author. Admittedly it is a unusual case, as Carolyn Keene is a pseudonym for several authors who have penned this series over the last century, but we have a similar case with Franklin W. Dixon. Both are long-running and quite well-renowned series, where IMO the individual novels derive notability from the whole. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (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.