Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sugar Creek Gang


 * 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The result was   speedy keep/withdrawn. All opinions are now to keep. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sugar Creek Gang

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a promotional article from a single-purpose account; also created Paul Hutchens. Unfortunately, people fall under A7 but their book series do not. This is an attempt at advertising, and no sources or claims of notability are provided. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- —  m o n o   01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is difficult to evaluate the notability of books from this period (the 1940s) as the material that would generally have included contemporaneous reviews are not generally available online. I am asking a librarian to take a look at this. Bongo  matic  04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The books are notable-and so is the author, & it doesnt take  specialist to see it--WorldCat authorities  listing for him shows 114 works in 358 editions in 4 languages and 11,488 library holdings total. The listing for this particular series is here; for the series, I count 41 different basic published titles in this series, some rewritten as a modernized version, as well as 7 in audiobooks, 11 in DVD versions, & 4 translated into German. It appears to be a series imitating the Hardy Boys in a very elementary way with a Christian orientation, aimed at 3rd & 4th graders. The ones that have been rewritten are in up to 500 libraries (very few libraries except specialized childrens' research collections keep books like this when no longer current). The reason we don't use speedy on books is that when looking at a primitively written articles like these, it is impossible to tell rapidly whether there is any possible notability. Therefore, asserting an author has published non-self published books is a sufficient indication or claim to possible notability to eliminate speedy also & need a more extended discussion.  As for reviews, for a start, look at the G News Archive search in the header to the AfD. Even GScholar has some.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG. While WorldCat and WorldCat Identities are not as well-known as Google, WorldCat is explicitly mentioned and even linked at WP:NB&mdash;a guideline that anyone nominating books for deletion should review before doing so. Bongo  matic  06:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Worldcat is a crutch, and one DGG relies on frequently . It's a little bit like google listings argument. Are we to support every book that has listings in more than 1000 libraries? 10,000? Is that the game? I think there could be notability, but widespread library holdings isn't it, and I'm dismayed that DGG relies on it so much, and this is a good place to make this argument. We should rely on sourcing indicative to the books or author, not saber metrics for wiki. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous subject-specific guidelines that use proxies for coverage where those proxies give rise to an inference that coverage exists or existed. In this case, where indexed or searchable contemporaneous sources are very unlikely to be available, library holdings would seem to be an extremely useful and reliable proxy&mdash;doubly so because the holdings (which are updated) are of books that would have been discarded in the normal course of events. Bongo  matic  09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that and understand the underlying reasoning for that argument, but I disagree fundamentally, and I think this is an excellent example to demonstrate that point. Popularity doesn't equal notability, otherwise every cat-falling-off-the-table video would meet those requirements. We have specific book criteria for exactly this reason. Independent indexing provides some objectivity, and then logic provides the metric about whether or not that indexing is sufficient... but the key piece is that the indexing process normalizes and provides a level playing field, so it allows the whole AfD debate to be objective. It's an important precedent for that reason. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well your opinion is welcome at WP:NB. However, the guideline has a specific section on non-contemporary_books that states:
 * ''The notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the [main] criteria . . . intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.
 * So, the guideline specifically embraces circulation and republication for old books, even though (as you correctly point out) popularity isn't generally a demonstration of notability. Bongo  matic  15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've striken my !vote above because of the sourcing provided below. My point is simply that reference to the number of libraries the book is in is a little like references to the number of google hits, and while circulation is relevant under the book criteria, library circulation is an imprecise proxy for that. I don't like the reliance on worldcat alone (although it's certainly welcome as part of a broader context). Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

*Delete - Delete or merge with article on author Paul Hutchens. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - neither article asserts notability. They both just say "this guy exists" or "these books exist". So? Are they significant? If they are, then update the article - I'm no subject matter expert here. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you care to appeal to guideline or precedent? As the instructions say, "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". Bongo  matic  15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Article is threadbare, and has no given sources of notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions do not evaluate the quality of the article or the sources cited within the article, but the notability of the topic. The evidence available&mdash;including that presented here (especially if you haven't done your own WP:BEFORE) needs to be considered. Bongo  matic  16:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think article quality and sources are always factors in AfD discussions. Regarding content, articles may not be empty, nor may they be simple plot summaries or gratuitous repetitions of information found in other articles: as it stands, it's not even ready to be made into a list article. I won't vote to keep unless some useful content is added, but based on the good faith efforts made to reference this article, I'm rescinding my previous vote to delete. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my favourite sort of AFD - when a poor/promotional article gets massaged into something that may be a keeper :) In terms of your point about article length - this is a reasonable point but it isn't entirely appropriate as AFD criteria. If the subject is notable it can be tagged for expansion - and that should be our focus (notability). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep Speedy Keep - per NBOOK and, DGG's AfD post here and recent citations to the article. His links demonstrate that NBOOK's Criteria #1 (sources independent of the books and that they serve a general audience exist) and #5 (the author is "historically significant" and "that any of his or her written works may be considered notable") are met or exceeded. Should any references to These books are being used in classroom instruction and appear on recommended reading lists, Criteria #4 would be is met with recent citations to the article. In addition, the 11 DVD set may meets Criteria #3 if as they are depicted in a movie or cartoon setting but someone would need to verify that with a citation as per recent citations to the article. moreno oso (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't meet the speedy keep criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cleaned things up a little and added a reference. The further additions by Morenooso easily establish notability. As a note it appears that some of those !voting delete are basing it on article quality/length which may not be valid criteria :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Just now I added a newspaper source that says the books sold over 3 million copies and were turned into a series of movies. It seems extremely likely to me that there would have been significant coverage of the books in the 1940s and 50s when they were selling. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I added two references from books which have good things to say about this series. Additionally, Google Book search shows numerous positive reviews from reliable sources, but which are only visible in snippet view, such as American Lutheran, 1948, How to parent your tweenager, Lets make a memory (1994), American Lutheran, 1939 (Swedish Lutherans, US), The Lutheran Witness, 1940 (German Lutherans, US), Growing up born again, 1987, How to raise a reader, 1999, Lutheraneren, 1951 (Norwegian Lutheran church, US). The Book search index shows more of the text from each of these than the linked snippet view. The Amazon.com site says the series (volumes 1-6) ranks #78 in "Books>Children's>Religions>Christianity>Christian." Edison (talk) 19:31, 6 July 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.