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

Halflife (Michalowski novel)

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

No sources cited since the articles creation in 2006 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eighth Doctor Adventures as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EDAs, no non-fan sources anywhere. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Shipping Publications

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

Fails Notability requirements for an organization as it lacks any good reliable coverage (See Wikipedia:Notability (Organisations and companies)) and the only sources in the article are from the website of the company itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Blue Fire

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

Fails WP:GNG prod opposed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete three Google search results of which two are Wikipedia - so also remove from 'Further reading' at Comparison of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of temples in the United States (LDS Church) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book is published by Cedar Fort, Inc.. a notable publishing company.Msruzicka (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article about St. George Utah Temple under the picture state temple was announced 31 january 1871. A book abouut mormon temples called Mormon Temples In America says November 9 1871. The book is not an official book from the LDS but neither is the website where you got this iinforation in the article. Msruzicka (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a coffee table book. It has one possibly qualifying review but there is no evidence of more qualifying coverage that would enable it to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As for the argument above about its publisher, this book cannot WP:INHERIT notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the official LDS website corresponds perfectly with whats in the book Mormon Temples In America that the St. George Utah Temple temple was announced November 9 1871. Not whats written in the wikipedia article which says 31 January 1871.Msruzicka (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an error in an article, fix it. I don't see how creating a new article is needed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another interesting point almost all the Mormon Temple articles uses a website that is not connected to the LDS chuch in any way. And at times information from that site does not correspond with the official LDS site.Msruzicka (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A website that is featured on all temple articles is https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/st.-george-utah-temple/ This site clearly states it is not an official site of the LDS church. why is it featured on all temple articles then?Msruzicka (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the result of incompetent and/or uninformed editing. Summary description of community consensus for ChurchOfJesusChristTemples.org at WP:LDS/RS is as follows:
The ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org is a self-published source and is not an official website of the LDS Church. It therefore does not qualify as a reliable source nor meets the special case usage for self-published sources.
Left guide (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's one review of unclear independence and everything else is user-generated, self-published, and/or not about this book. At best being extremely generous for the sake of argument, there's only up to one qualifying source, and that's simply not enough to show notability here. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This book is just not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There are plenty of books that never make it here because they are just normal books. Glennfcowan (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm removing the Goodreads mention - these are user generated reviews - I've given an explanation of this in some of the related AfDs. I've also removed the link to Altus Fine Art. That isn't a review of the book, as it's a general comment about the artist. It's also not independent enough to be considered something that could give notability for the artist, as it's a promotional blurb meant to encourage people to buy from the website. They aren't going to say negative things about someone whose work they're hoping to profit from. If they were an extremely notable art gallery or a museum this would be debatable, but they're not.

Now as far as the Boyack part goes, that's a book jacket blurb (BJB). BJBs are short quotes that are written to promote and sell a book. These people are approached by the publisher or author and asked to make a short 1-2 sentence statement about the book. It's not in-depth and it's specifically written to be promotional copy, so it's not considered to be a review. Some publishers even re-use the same blurbs over and over again on other books by the same author, sometimes even years down the line. While sure, this is the author's only book, the fact remains that BJBs aren't usable to establish notability because of their very nature. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source out there seems to be the Deseret News review. I'm willing to see that as usable because well, there are a lot of LDS members out there and the paper isn't going to review everything released by one of their members. It wouldn't be the strongest possible source, but I would be willing to see it as usable. In any case, that's kind of a moot point since this is only one source and that's not enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 12 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]
Delete: As explained, the reviews given are not independent of the subject. I don't see any reviews (or anything) in Gscholar or Jstor, so we don't have notability for books. The author might be notable, having won awards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree about whether the review in Deseret News can be used to qualify here (I think it can, since the book's publisher is not affiliated with the LDS church), but it's just one review when multiple are needed, and the rest are not independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm looking over the reviews. So far here is the rundown:

BYU: This is not a review, this is a publisher's summary. Even if it wasn't, no retailer is going to tell you that one of their products is awful - they want you to buy the book. At most they might post someone else's review stating that it is bad, but they are going to be quick and clear to attribute it to that publication.
Goodreads: User submitted reviews. You can read my explanation at this AfD as to why those aren't usable or even generally considered to be pertinent to Wikipedia.
DBRL: User generated reviews, not issued by the site itself.
Self-published blog: This runs the same issue as the user submitted reviews on retail and database websites. Anyone can create a blog and post a review. These are only usable if you can prove that the site has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other independent reliable sources, particularly academic and scholarly sources.
Library site: User submitted reviews - these are actually the same reviews as posted at the DBRL, as they pull from the same database for that area.
LDS Living: At the bottom of the page it lists that it took the review from the Deseret Times, so it's a duplicate of the DT review.
Deseret Times: I'd be willing to say that this is usable. It's brief, but the paper is independent of the LDS and by extension, the author and publisher.

I've removed all of the sources but the blog post and the link to the Deseret Times. With the blog post, I suppose there's a chance that the site could be one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule - unlikely, but I'll leave it up there until someone researches that. As far as the other sources go, they were doing far more harm on the page than good. Unusable sources like those tend to make a page seem less notable rather than more, especially in the case of the sources that were accidentally misrepresented. I'm going to see if I can find any other sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lead of the page goes on and on and on about the author, but there’s only one semi-independent and somewhat reliable source … a blog and a college bookstore. Huge WP:NOTINHERITED fail. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 12 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]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. Sources are all primary or user-generated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you suggesting if sources were computer generated that would be better than sources created by people.Msruzicka (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USERGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a bit surprised that no sources exist for this, as I remember selling more than a few copies of this back in the mid to late 2000s. However the issue here isn't whether or not this was ever popular and whether or not there have been any reviews or coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable and independent/secondary. What we need are things like reviews or articles about the book in like say, a newspaper like the Salt Lake Tribune. I checked Newspapers.com, but the only listings for this were advertisements where various stores were saying nice things about the book in order to entice customers to purchase it.

As far as the 'reviews' in the article go, none of them are usable. Here's a rundown:

BYU: This is not a review. It is a publisher's summary of the book - you can find this summary on other websites selling the book, like Amazon.
Cardston Bookshop: This is a review by a random user, not a review by the website itself.
Goodreads: All user created reviews. Not pertinent to Wikipedia.
Thrift Books: Also user created reviews, not a review by the website itself.
The Mormon Literature and Creative Arts: This is questionable as to whether or not this could be seen as a review. It's labeled as a summary, so it's possible that this was an alternative publisher's summary. Now it does show that two people reviewed it for the Association for Mormon Letters, however even if that is considered to be independent and secondary enough, the issue would be that it's one publication - we would need reviews from multiple outlets, not the same one.

Now, going back to the issue with user generated content. The issue here is that anyone can create a review on sites like Goodreads, Amazon, and so on. If any limits exist, they're usually not much of a hurdle - Amazon might only require that you buy the book, for example. That lack of a hurdle makes it kind of a given that someone will post a review about a given product. If it exists, eventually a member of the general public will give their opinion. What makes a review from a media outlet like the Salt Lake Tribune or NYT special is because they have a limited amount of space and staff time to create a review. Countless books are released in any given genre each year - there's no way that these outlets can review all of those, so they have to be extremely discerning about which ones they review. The only time user created content is considered to be noteworthy is when it gains coverage in media outlets like the NYT and such. Examples of this would be Saving Christmas and Bend, Not Break, where there were attempts to create review campaigns to sway the public user ratings.

Aside from that, the page also uses wiki entries - these should never be used as a source because they're user created. There's little to no editorial oversight and anyone can create a page. The only time wikis are sourced within an article is if they are part of the topic at hand - even then it's expected that the source will be accompanied with secondary, independent reliable sources that would justify mentioning it within the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the user reviews, this isn't meant to be a knock against people who like to review books and other media in their spare time or a knock against those websites. Shoot, I used to be an extremely active reviewer on Goodreads, IMDb, and Amazon back in the day and even ran a book blog. (Side note: someone once tried to use a review I posted on my blog in an AfD - that was a surreal moment to say the least.) It's just that these are so common and expected that they aren't considered to be discerning enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something else of note: adding a ton of unreliable sources to an article doesn't make an article look more notable. In this situation it actually runs the serious risk of undermining any attempts at retaining it. With the case of the publisher summaries misinterpreted as reviews, there's the risk of it being seen as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the sources. I don't think that this is the case here, but it's how it can come across. It's far, far better to limit it to sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable and usable to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:42, 11 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]

Redirect per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I think it would be possible to build an article. Google books has some promising leads on snippet views of reviews in Fantasy/Sci-Fi journals from the mid 1990s, and it is likely there would be off-line coverage in media from then as well. However, without being able to access the full reviews, it probably best to redirect at present until a motivated editor with access to the right off-line materials can do the topic justice.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 13 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]
Keep as the evidence that Luna Monthly is a reliable source is convincing so that with the Military Chaplains review there is a pass of WP:NBOOK in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 10 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions