Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Mabel

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Mabel

The Adventures of Mabel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, no mentions around the web other than in a television show TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Keep per additional sources located by Cunard. Well done on the sourcing! Jfire (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feetfeet 341 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, please expand your rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Jfire: Thanks for finding the NYT review. I also found this brief review from Kirkus Reviews, and a review from The Bookman which was criticised by an article from The Wrap that briefly comments upon this book as being a non-independent review (Then, he used the literary journal The Bookman, which he edited, to publish a glowing review of “The Adventures of Mabel,” not disclaiming his rather obvious conflict of interest.) Unfortunately I didn't find substantially more from Google or The Wikipedia Library, so notability is sort of borderline. VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang Technical note: WLib link seems to be temporary, just wondering if you could try to generate a working one? I'd like to know myself as I recently started linking to sources available to TWL myself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Does this link work? According to this link I found lots of links related to The Unlikely Adventures of Mabel Jones, a different book, and two paywalled reviews from The Bookman, 1, 2. However, The Wrap noted that the first review (published prior to 1910) had a rather obvious conflict of interest (source), but the 2nd review appears to be independent. They might be SIGCOV but somehow the Wikipedia Library doesn't provide full access. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang Nope, "Session Ended"/expired. I guess it's best to link paywalled links that we then pipe to our gates, WL or others... and yeah, there are some issues with WL, recently I run into a CEEOL article that wasn't accessible through WL and just let me "suggest it to my librarian". There's always LibGen for backup too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know there is sort of a related issue here with some other resources, e.g., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and American National Biography. Still, the sources currently include two brief reviews and two reviews from The Bookman, of which one is independent, so I agree that notability appears to be weak. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NBOOK, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Piotrus: You might like to have a look at the new reviews found. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx for the ping, changing my vote to weak keep as I concur with your assessment. Thank you, User:Cunard, for rescuing this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Thanks to
    reliable and independent. Overall, notability is IMO met, albeit a bit weakly, so I'm updating to weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Cunard @VickKiang Semi-relavant and ironically, on Polish Wikipedia, a certain forceful editor prevents using reviews as establishing notability for literature, while promoting arguments that the number of translations, editions and even copies printed should be used instead... ugh :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus (talk · contribs), I am sorry to hear that as I think that editor's arguments are the exact opposite of how notability should be determined. I hope the Polish Wikipedia community do not agree with that editor. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard Unfortunately, it's a very small community, that editor is vocal and I think an admin, and nobody seems inclined to fight over that interpretation, I started a discussion in which nobody agrees with her, but she still reverts me and insists the consensus is with her as nobody but me bothered to revert her (when I tried to add a note to the policy that coverage in reliable reviews is an indicator of reliability). Eh, we are getting off topic here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.