Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Solitaire 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 original research should either be sourced or removed, but the subject is notable. The rest is not up to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Solitaire Mystery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is pure research, and basically unsalvageable. Would be nice if someone recreated it in accordance with WP policies sometime. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This received a lot of coverage when it came out - plenty of reviews on Google News.--Michig (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These for instance:, , , , , . It also won the Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature in 1990.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  10:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added a citation to the Critics' Prize and to a review; Michig's sources should lead to a few more. Seems about enough for a Keep, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the two "keep" votes, maybe I just need something explained to me. The recently added prize and review citations are nice--thanks for that--but the article has 11 sections and subsections, and is currently around 12,000 bytes but with the exception of Reception every line of the article is original research.  I'm not quibbling that the subject is notable or deserving of an article--it is both--I'm saying that this article grossly neglects WP standards about research, and should be scrapped and rewritten in accordance with policy.  Given the correctly cited Reception section, rather than delete it, I would vote for a "keep" too, if the rest of the article text were deleted, leaving only the reception section as a stub.  Does that work? Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 31 January 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.