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

Mormon Temples In America

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

Non-notable book. No independent reliable sources present, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers

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

Non-notable book. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only additional source I found was this one. I don't think that's enough to establish notability.
Rainsage (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the star reviews are by people who read the book. The arthur Warnock seems to be a notable arthur. Book is sold at Brigham Young University book store. Warnock has won awards.checked google books searched the arthur Caleb Warnock. 16,900 results appeared.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews have been added.Msruzicka (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first 'review' (Utah Preppers) is a blog, not useful for establishing notability. The second is a copy of the third, an article by the Deseret News. All other sources are store pages. WP:NBOOK requires two or more independent reliable sources, which the article does not have. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Deseret News is not fully independent of the LDS church, and neither is BYU, so they can't be used to establish notability for LDS-related topics, and none of the other arguments in this discussion prove notability. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My First Book Of Mormon Stories

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

Non-notable book. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good reads indicates the book has sold more than 100,000 copies. The star reviews on those web sites are by people who read the book. If you look at the article the book has a sequel by the same arthur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Msruzicka book sales and sequels do not contribute towards establishing notability at all. Independent reliable sources do, and the article has none. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; none of the references in the article contribute to notability since they are not independent reliable sources about the book. Rather, they are the book itself, user-submitted reviews, and merchant outlets selling the book. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Diplomacy

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Stone. I could only find reviews on personal blogs, no coverage in independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Doesn't meet GNG Noah ^💬 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nog's Vision

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. One non-independent source in the article, and a WP:BEFORE returned little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nog's Vision doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I cannot find any reviews of the book, just listings and brief mentions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a 1+ page review at Military Chaplains' Review Volume 104, p. 58-59. Any reason this is not a reliable source? The Google Books search has a number of hits from magazines which I think do reviews, like The Publishers Weekly Volume 209, but as there is no access, I cannot see if they actually do review this book. Does anyone have any kind of access? And there's a bit in Not the Same Old, Done-It-Before Youth Meetings, not sure how we see this as a reliable source, and I cannot see p. 88-89. P. 86-87 has plot summary and the one bit of reception of being "a wonderful storybook". Daranios (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The review in the Military Chaplains' Review is certainly getting there; I assume there's some sort of editorial oversight. Of course, people can't assess sources they can't access. I'm always glad to be proven wrong when sources I can't access turn up proving something is notable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios, good search, thank you! The Military Chaplains' Review is a good review. The Publishers Weekly result is merely a list of books that Paulist Press was offering a discount on. Not the Same Old is a guide for conducting youth meetings; it recaps Nog's Vision to discuss the question of the difference between a dream and a vision. I'm not confident that this meets the criteria but I'm open to hearing arguments that it does. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one good review above, plus [1]. This says it was reviewed in a publication called Luna Monthly in 1974 as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Luna Monthly review, it's not super long, but it is certainly evaluative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Luna Monthly review, PARAKANYAA. That's not enough yet for me to change to keep, as it is a non-notable fanzine. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a source has no impact on its reliability, or plenty of reliable academic journals are unusable. If you meant just in the context of zines, fair, but it actually does appear to be a notable publication as searching for it in some science fiction history sources showed some sigcov. No one has written an article yet. Zines are not always unreliable, they just must achieve some kind of reliable recognition, for example the albums project has tons of zines listed as reliable sources. It also involved several notable people.

With the Sci fi encyclopedia saying about this publication that it was "notable for its professionalism and its exceptionally thorough review coverage, for which it is a useful research tool. Reviews – some by Greg Bear – were often good", that counts for me. The fact that it was indexed in the sci fi book review index is also a sign that it had some level of acceptance in the wider scene. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phew, the Luna Monthly surely provides a balance to positive other reviews. I believe the sources collected together fullfill WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [2]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauxbatons

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

This page has similar coverage and notability as other locations in the Harry Potter series, notably the Durmstrang academy as both locations have the same role in the series as schools in the triwizard tournament in the 4th harry potter book, which does not have its own article.

The references in the current article are currently two top 10 trivia lists from screenrant, an article written by JK Rowling herself about the school and other articles that talk about Beauxbatons along with other locations in the series with similar depth and focus.

Based on this with the WP:GNG guidelines I don't believe Beauxbatons has significant independent coverage to warrant its own article, and it should be merged with Places in Harry Potter with other locations in the series that have similar coverage. Mousymouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge makes sense to me, the best sources in the article aren’t actually about Beauxbatons exclusively, but about analysis of larger themes in the text, and I think the value of those citations could be preserved on the Places in Harry Potter page, or a section of another article dealing with analysis of themes around national identity and ethnicity in HP. penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Penultimate supper. Based on WP:GNG, this doesn't have significant coverage to warrant an article. But there is a valid WP:ATD and merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is specifically not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source. What is relevant is if the secondary sources can provide enough material for a full article. Now the source by Flotmann, as well as others like Muggles, Monsters and Magicians, Creating Magical Worlds and "Harry Potter – National Hero and National Heroic Epic" all have commentary which goes significantly beyond a mention in passing, and can provide more material for an article which, as it is now, already goes beyond a stub. "A Postmodernistic Look at the Harry Potter Series" additionally has a much shorter, but non-trivial observation which I did not see in the other sources. The same is most likely true for Durmstrang. So both topics in my view fullfill WP:GNG. All that said, much coverage is done in direct comparison of Durmstrang and Beauxbaton. So while I think both could easily have their own article, I am also fine with them being covered in extended sections, or maybe even a combined section, at Places in Harry Potter. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like Penultimate supper stated, the analysis deals with themes around national identity and ethnicity in Harry Potter. So if there was and article about that, that might be a good place to cover both, and that might be a more encyclopedic approach than the list of locations, but I don't know of such an article so far. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Daranios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daranios's sources are sufficient to establish notability. McYeee (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions