Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to poetry.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Literature

How to $ell Your Wargame Design

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

I believe this article fails WP:NBOOK. Aside from the one source listed in the article, a detailed search shows no other coverage of this book. If that one source wasn't listed, it would be hard to prove this book even exists. SJD Willoughby (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lou Zocchi per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The only source I could find was this review in Space Gamer. A second source would allow the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lou Zocchi per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid-Lindgren-Preis

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

No sources and no apparent notability from web search. Note that the current Swedish award has an article and is widely reported on, but the defunct German one has no media coverage. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Dreams

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

Fails the books notability guideline. The article is based mostly on primary sources and has only one independent review, which does not establish the notability of the subject. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more useful sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Australia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the problems with the article. I created it during a time when I still had the impression, that fulfilling notability is not considered as important if the author is very well known. Egan's novel Schild's Ladder for example up until a few months back didn't even have a single reference and almost completely consisted of only plot summary. It still contains not even a single review (although I intend to add the one I've found for the german article soon). The same holds for "TAP". I only realized afterwards that it was because the articles were created in 2003 and 2007 respectively, when the guidelines in their current form probably didn't even exist yet. Afterwards, I tried to improve some articles already created, but didn't find much more to add to establish notatbility. Hence if the article gets deleted, I'm okay with that. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luminous (book), the Egan book this story is part of (and that the above mentioned review is for). No indepedent notablity. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

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

The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [1]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading here [3], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could redirect to the author, his name comes up enough in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

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

One review (which is questionable reliability wise), nothing else found in a search. Self-published. Does not pass NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found this work used as reference in others: here, here and here. Scholar doesn't bring up much more. Also listed here. Not much else. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

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

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Military. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy

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

Reference book. Stub since forever. No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Previously deprodded. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least four reviews which I have added to the page, 3 of which are decently lengthy, one of which is less so but still sigcov. NBOOK requires 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a few other reviews as well, passes GNG and NBOOK. Shapeyness (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, for references added. Toughpigs (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Newly added sources are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McCall: The Solid Light Films and Related Works

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

Only one reliable source, I think. Only other thing I found is a few sentences from Reference & Research book news, which like that publication always does is more about the book's publication and carries no evaluative material on its content. There's also the kultureflash review which I am very uncertain of the reliability of, can't find any indications. If it is reliable I guess that makes two? Can anyone find anything else? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other usages I can find are either citations, but not significant coverage, of the book or coverage of the actual solid light films (some of which would probably meet WP:GNG!). hinnk (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

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

I was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Travel and tourism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of India

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

Fails WP:NBOOK tagged for notability since Januray of last year. One unreliable review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and India. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, I noticed the same thing, was gonna AfD myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rias Gremory

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

Character appears to fail standalone notability, and much of the article seems to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. The vast majority of the article is unsourced aside from primary references to episodes of the anime, and almost all the secondary references are only in the "reception" section. Almost none of these references meet WP:SIGCOV: 1 only briefly covers Highschool DxD, and is mostly about Jamie Marchi, 2 is primary, 3-23 are WP:USERG, and 24-29 are just describing merchandise, and most of them are USERG. 30 is the only reference that may be a reliable secondary source, but the article does not give significant coverage to Rias, and her cosplay is not ranked particularly high. Almost nothing about Rias appears on Google Scholar, nothing at all on JSTOR, and Google News only contains trivial mentions of Highschool DxD in general, and almost none of them are specific to Rias. The article overall reads like something from a Highschool DxD fan wiki, and Rias seems to lack any standalone notability. This article should be merged into List of High School DxD characters in a greatly abridged form. Masskito (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Extremely selectively, per nom. Rias is not independently notable and the article is WP:REFBOMBed with trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of High School DxD characters per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage that doesn't quite break passed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. It's best to mention this as part of an article about a notable topic, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Time

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBOOK, no reviews or any other info on the net DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, they were all released around the same time, and lack WP:SIGCOV, fail WP:NBOOK, have no reviews or any other info on the net:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references patently fail WP:SIGCOV, and nothing on Google Scholar, Google News, or JSTOR. A Google search only brings up listings of the book. No evidence of notability. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, appears to fail WP:GNG, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Thieves' Labyrinth

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

A novel that I cannot find enough sources for it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I think the Historical Novel Society source can be considered reliable, but the "eurocrime" site does not appear to be one, meaning there is only a single potentially reliable source here. I have tried various searches, but have been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage that goes beyond a name-drop in reliable sources of any kind. The closest I found was this article on Kirkus, but the top states that it is a Sponsored Blog post, and so cannot count as a review for the purposes of establishing notability. Neither the author nor book series has an article, so I was unable to identify any potential Redirect or Merge target, and with only one source, it does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As it does have the one source, I figured I would bring it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, to see if anyone else could find any other potentially reliable sources or reviews for it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's very odd that we have an article on the third book and none of the others. Other books in the series have reviews, ones on Proquest from the Lincolnshire Echo, the Times Literary Supplement, this that I am unsure of the reliability of, this interview by a major publisher. A series article could probably be stitched together from these, instead of covering the individual books, but I don't have strong feelings here. Also according to this source "James McCreet" is actually a pseudonym of Matt Stanley. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about the three book series using the sources identified above. The Kirkus review may be usable as the blog is by an experienced writer "J. Kingston Pierce is both the editor of The Rap Sheet and the senior editor of January Magazine." There was an article about the author James McCreet and articles about the other two books in the series but they were all deleted as promotional under speedy deletion criteria G11. I missed the speedy deletion of the other articles but objected to the deletion of this one and edited out the promotional content. The author article was restored to userspace here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a Merge suggested but no existing target article identified. If the article doesn't exist, it can't be a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookBrowse

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

No WP:SIGCOV of this book review site; references are mostly mentions; awards don't appear to be particularly notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BookBrowse has been around a long time and well known in the book world. It is often cited by other reliable sources, such as The Cambridge History of Postmodern Literature[4], The New York Times[5][6], and dozens of volumes of Contemporary Authors[7]. It was singled out in Public Libraries (journal)[8], The Public Librarian's Guide to the Internet[9], the Chicago Tribune[10], The Bookseller[11], Publishers Weekly ("Book Site Gives Online Buying That Old Store Feel". 6 January 1999); In 1998 was featured by Yahoo! as its Incredibly Useful Site of the Day. It would be nice to have a lengthy article dedicated solely about the site, but these are often hard to find for many topics. The question for trivial coverage is if there is enough material to write an article with, and that has been done. -- GreenC 22:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. I also found a decent amount of Newspapers.com coverage, without going too in depth here are some of the sources I found [12] [13] [14] [15]. Also some coverage in these books [16]. Probably more if I looked harder, there's definitely more sigcov in the sea of mentions but I think this is enough for me to vote keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC and PARAKANYAA. Οἶδα (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

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

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Ether: as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 13:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s only one source that does more than list or suggest how to pronounce this person’s name. That badly fails our foundation of significant coverage, and is borderline original research. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Typically, I'd close this discussion as a Redirect as an ATD but there is no mention of this subject at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions