Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything

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!} 23:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything

[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)

The arguments against this page had been listed in June 2022 at Talk:John D. MacDonald#Merger Proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then redirect, per said discussion. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, as this article was BOLDly merged without opposition, and categorized {{R from merge}}. Today, the nominator restored the article and placed the AfD notice in a single edit[1] today. As this was merged, it is both unnecessary to delete, and we'd be deleting history of a merged article. —siro χ o 03:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above aside, I lean keep on this now that the BRD cycle has progressed. This seems to meet WP:GNG.
1. Analog Vol. LXXII, No. 1, September 1963, p. 94 has a review.
2. Anatomy of Wonder vol. 4 p. 176 has an entry with SIGCOV.
3. New York Times has a capsule review [2] 07 Apr 1963.
4. There's some SIGCOV in this Booklist article from 2006: [3]
5. ISFDB also points us to some more reviews [4]:
  1. Review by Judith Merril (1965) in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1965
  2. Review by Spider Robinson (1979) in Destinies, April-June 1979
    Review by Spider Robinson (1979) in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, May 1979
  3. Review by David Pringle (1988) in Modern Fantasy: The Hundred Best Novels.

—siro χ o 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our article needs better sourcing and some cruft-clearing, but in addition to the above reviews, there's a chapter titled after this book (and maybe about it? ProQuest is misbehaving for me currently) in a 1979 Ph.D. thesis, "Invisibility as a significant motif in western literature: its attainment, use, and moral consequences", Bonnie Coleman Wimberly, Florida State University, 1979. I was hoping that maybe a more recent source could point out the problematic aspects of the happy-go-lucky sexual-assault plot summary (which hasn't aged well) but that would take actually being able to read the source. We could at least make an attempt at editing the plot summary to be more neutral rather than writing e.g. "relatively innocuous practical jokes such as completely undressing women" (??!) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to access the Ph.D. thesis through a VPN. The (five page) chapter is entirely about the book. No dice on a more modern view on the problematic plot, though: it paints the hero as extremely moral, in contrast to the villains of the story, and talks about his sexual assaults of bystanders as "pranks of a hilarious nature". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews in Analog, one in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, plus other sources found above. Easy keep per WP:NBOOK, GNG and common sense, WP:TROUT the nom for not even checking ISFDb list of reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK per sources presented above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: easily meets NBOOK per sources identified above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the basis of 2 movies (both having Wikipedia articles) & introducing a trope that has been frequently reused ought to be sufficient to prove notability. -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:08, 20 December 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.