Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Mabel

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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harry Thurston Peck The article as it stands is OR by the author's own admission ([1]). I did find a capsule review in the NYT. Not enough on its own to meet our requirements, but it's possible that someone with access to period sources could establish notability. Until then, redirect to the author. Jfire (talk) 02:19, 15 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]
@Feetfeet 341 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 Harry Thurston Peck. The 4-sentence NYT capsule review fails WP:SIGCOV. I cannot access the Bookman's article - if anyone can, please throw a link my way. Even assuming it would meet SIGCOV, we are one in-depth (SIGCOV-meeting), reliable review short of this meeting 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]

Comment: Thank you, Lord Roem, for reopening the AfD. Cunard (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Bookman. Vol. 53, no. 315. December 1917. p. 121. ISSN 2043-1503. ProQuest 3212704.
  The article was published in 1917, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "By Harry Thurston Peck. Illustrated in colour and black-and-white by Harry Rountree. (Harrap.) For any youngster who has never read "The Adventures of Mabel," here is a chance of reading them that ought not to be missed. It is one of those fascinating tales for children that strikes exactly the right note at the start—"Once upon a time there was a little girl named Mabel, who lived in a cottage with her grandma, and her brother Walter, and Jane the cook"—and keeps it up most alluringly right to the last line when you have forty men shouting: "Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Mabel!" There was the best of reasons for their enthusiasm, for it comes at the close of one of the most exciting episodes in the book. Mabel plays a part in all twelve of these stories, but Walter shares in her adventures, so does Towser the dog and Rex the horse, the Goat and the Grey Rat, Kitty-Cat, the little Pig, and others. The word delightful has been used in describing so many books that it is getting a little worn, but it is the one word that really does describe the book. "The Adventures of Mabel" are delightful adventures and the illustrations of Harry Rountree add to the delight of reading about them."
2. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Evangelist. Vol. 68, no. 47. Harper & Brothers. 1897-11-25. p. 27. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel are charmingly related by Rafford Pyke and have evidently been told first to interest the little "Constance," to whom they are dedicated in its more permanent form. Mabel, the six-year-old heroine while gathering strawberries in the woods, finds a green lizard with his tail caught under a stone, and goes to his rescue. He proves to be the King of all the Lizards, and to show gratitude to his kind deliverer, he teaches her to understand "animal talk," and to make them understand her, and also to whistle a little call that will make all animals good to her. Armed with this secret talisman, Mabel goes about winning friends among the dumb creatures. Even a hungry wolf, a wild horse, and a cruel giant yield instant submission to her gentle sway, and the little readers cannot fail to gain through her eyes and ears a new sympathy with dumb creatures, and to learn that kindness and unselfishness can work miracles. The book is beautifully printed by the University Press at Cambridge, on antique paper, and the many quaint illustrations by Melanie Elizabeth Norton are most original and amusing. (Dodd, Mead and Company, New York $1.75.)"
3. "Other Books for the Young". The Critic. Vol. 28, no. 825. 1897-12-11. p. 363. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "There is plenty of work cut out for the infantile imagination in "The Adventures of Mabel," by Rafford Pyke, and more in the illustrations, by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton. Mabel has quite an assortment of animal enemies and friends who helped her into and out of difficulties, and a careful and matter-of-fact Grandma, who laughs at her stories and tells her that she is certainly a very original little girl. The Grandma is really the more original of the two; for, if Mabel whistles, she has been taught by a lizard; if she is not afraid to be out late, it is because the wolf sees her home; when she fastens their crime upon the two robbers, who cry Ha! at their work, it is because Rex, her horse, has informed her of their doings. The pictures are in black, white and gray. (Dodd, Mead & Co.)
4. "Children's Books". The Nation. Vol. 75, no. 1690. 1897-11-18. p. 401. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "'The Adventures of Mabel,' by Rafford Pyke (Dodd, Mead & Co.), inspires a degree of respect by its beautiful type and paper, and by its simply expressed pictures, for which three values have sufficed; but when one comes to read the story, indifference or disapproval arises. Some will stop at indifference when they find positive merit lacking, and think us over-critical to object to a childish heroine who, thanks to a fairy gift, tames a fierce wolf in the forest and a wildly unmanageable horse, who takes the lead in a piece of defective work, and copes single-handed with a monstrous giant of the old-fashioned child-devouring kind; and, in consequence of these and like actions, often hears her grandmother says, "You are a very wonderful little girl"—a judgment she accepts without disclaimer. Such incidents, to be sure, may be told in a harmless burlesque way, but unless better guarded than in this instance nothing would be more likely to foster conceit."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Reed, Helen Leah (1900-12-08). "Books for Children. Twenty of the Best Among Recent Ones". The New York Times Saturday Review of Books. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1900, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "For the very littlest ones, the readers under ten, I may name as the best of all "The Adventures of Mabel," (Dodd, Mead & Co.) Although issued anonymously two or three years ago, as it now first appears with the name of its author, Prof. H. T. Peck, it is practically new. The adventures of Mabel are with animals, spiders, giants, and other creatures dear to the heart of children. The thought is clear, and the language suited to the thought."
  2. Winthrop, Robert C. (1897-10-21). "Book Reviews". The Congregationalist and Herald of Gospel Liberty. pp. 577–578. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "From Dodd, Mead & Co. come The Adventures of Mabel ($1.75) by Rafford Pyke, with original and striking illustrations in black and white by Mélanie E. Norton. The book deals largely with animals of all sorts and its stories are thrilling and delightful. They will fascinate the younger boys and girls. The pictures and binding also are original and effective. It will be one of the most popular juvenile books of the season, we have no doubt."
  3. "New Books for the Young". The Independent. Vol. 49, no. 2558. 1897-12-09. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel. By Rafford Pyke. (Dodd, Mead & Co. $1.75.) This is a beautiful book in every respect, strikingly illustrated by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton, and written to engage the interest of children. It is a book well suited to the Christmas gift-box."
  4. "The Adventures of Mabel". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 52, no. 16. 1897-10-16. p. 640. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "Mabel, who was about six years old, went into the woods one day to gather strawberries; hearing a queer little sound, as if some one was in pain, she looked about her and found a little green lizard fastened to the ground by a big stone that had fallen on its tail. Mabel releases the lizard, who in turn teaches her to understand animal talk, and how to make animals understand her when she talks, and also how to make animals good to her. The result is many odd adventures, in which animals figure.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Adventures of Mabel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Thanks to Cunard for the new sources- the four reviews found appear to lean on the short side but still borderline passes WP:SIGCOV (somewhat more than 100 words and does not fall under examples of trivial/routine coverage) or non-triviality per WP:NBOOK#1, in addition to being 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.