Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

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. Courcelles 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Wahwahpedal (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Rangoon11 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or send everything to TV Tropes. Original research is accepted (and welcomed vibrantly) there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we need a "Wikipedia is not TV Tropes" listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable topic concerning the biggest-selling novelist in history. The article needs the addition of citations but there is no shortage of possible sources (e.g. [1]).Rangoon11 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those actually talks ABOUT the tropes? None that I see. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots, but you have to go through the various pages of results.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me to find it myself. You added the link, you prove that it has sources (WP:BURDEN and all that). I'm seeing only false positives out the ass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of JSTOR reveals two example articles that provide substantial coverage of these common themes:
Mezei, Kathy. "Spinsters, Surveillance, and Speech: The Case of Miss Marple, Miss Mole, and Miss Jekyll". Journal of Modern Literature 30.2 (2007): 103-120.
Beehler, Sharon A. "Close vs. Closed Reading: Interpreting the Clues". The English Journal 77.6 (1998): 39-43

Both journal articles discuss important themes in Christie's writings of the type covered by the Wikipedia article that's been nominated for deletion: the topic need not be pure original research. I'm not enough of a literary type to be able to integrate the journal articles into the Wikipedia article, but looking through them was easy enough that I can see that multiple reliable sources provide substantial coverage of this subject. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the JSTOR findings. TPH, BEFORE applies to deletions, BURDEN applies to specific facts within an article--saying you can't be bothered to read a source isn't helpful here. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Another example why the essence of WP:BEFORE should be required. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 17 August 2011 (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.