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

The Trump Economic Miracle

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

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is draftify not an option? There may be opportunities to improve this article in the future if independent reviews are forthcoming. Reconrabbit 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, with books like this if it hasn't gotten reviews by now I would be surprised if it did, so at that point it just just seems like a backdoor deletion. But sure if that's the route people want to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - not separately notable or not detailed enough. There might be another article suitable to merge it in to though.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said "draftify", but I can see a back and forth on perspectives of this book. It's been talked about by news talking heads, as far back as September. In fact, the closer to the election, the more we heard about how Trump's pro-growth policies "fueled unprecedented growth and prosperity". The news media viewed this book according to however they already viewed Trump. That aspect is unlikely to change. But I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article on it. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No objection to someone working on this in draft space provided it go through draft review successfully before being moved back to main space. Reviews in business journals (by that I mean academic ones we can use not trade journals) might still happen, as those kind of reviews often appear later. It may end up dying in draft space if refs can’t be located and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab speculative fiction

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

None of the sources used here discuss "Arab speculative fiction" as a grouping, only similar but not the same topic. If sources do exist on the topic nothing here is built around them so it is entirely OR at present. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 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 Middle East. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for "Arabic SF". TompaDompa (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's e.g. Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction (2019). The topic, in itself, is certainly notable. /Julle (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa @Julle But as is, every single word in the article is cited to sources not about the article topic - entirely OR. At that point it is WP:TNT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of notability, are science and speculative fiction equivalent? I know they're intertwined but I am uncertain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Speculative fiction is, as commonly understood, broader. Science fiction is a part of speculative fiction. That is, I'd argue an article about Arabic science fiction is relevant for an an article on Arabic speculative fiction, but it's not entirely the same. In a situation where all reliable sources would talk about Arabic science fiction, it'd be far better to move it to Arabic science fiction. /Julle (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, but will be adding the appropriate CTOP notice to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens As is, nothing in the article is salvageable. So unless someone wants to rewrite it and change the scope this is a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't apply, and I wish people would actually read the essay before quoting it. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is nothing salvageable for a topic that is notable under the current article. To comply with policy from what is here it would have to be reduced to a sentence: Arabic science fiction is science fiction written in Arabic (or related to Arabic culture, or something). There is nothing encyclopedic about a one sentence definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

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

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in The San Francisco Call and Post (here), The Courier-Journal (here) and The Nation (here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is entirely unreferenced and has much personal opinion in it. Tim riley talk 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are supposed to delete stubs that can improve at AfD I sure missed the memo.

And in any case this has much improved since then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three reviews in minor papers from 1906 really isn't sufficient pass NBOOK. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews from newspapers now would be enough to pass, so why not? NBOOK needs two non trivial (or short) reviews. Unless it's on some fringe theory that's been since disproven to where it's impossible to cover it with the contemporary sources without violating our other policies, it does very much count. This book is about literary criticism. I figured there was much more anyway, and as seen below there was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. I am inclined to agree with Ssilvers, and SchroCat quantifies this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep with many thanks to ReaderofthePack. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to agree with PARAKANYAA in that this does pass NBOOK. If a source is considered to be something reliable that could give notability, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the source is - all that matters is that it could give notability. To that end, these sources do accomplish that and give notability, so the book technically passes NBOOK at this point. What we should be looking at would be the following:

Is there enough out there to flesh this book out beyond a stub?
Does the existing sourcing give off a strong enough suggestion that more sourcing is available, just not readily available on the internet?

The first is one I'm still trying to answer, but the second question is the one I'm more concerned with because answering that would give me a more clear answer to the first question. And so far, the answer seems to be that there is more out there - it's just not readily available on the internet or at least isn't coming up easily in searches. For example, this news source mentions it as one of the two books that put Mencken on the map, so to speak, and that it also helped make Shaw more of a household name. Then there's this 2002 review of a biography on Mencken. It mentions much of the same - that it helped put both authors on the map - the review also mentions a bit of the biographer's literary criticism of Mencken's Shaw book. So there's more out there - we just have to dig for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)

This book by Oxford University Press mentions that there were many reviews, further bolstering my belief that there's more coverage out there - it just isn't easy to locate, either because of how generic this title is or because it's just not available on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, SchroCat, Gog the Mild - what is your opinion on the article now - I've greatly expanded the article. I've started looking for sourcing using just "George Bernard Shaw" and "Mencken" - this has helped immensely. It seems that when places do cover Mencken on Shaw, they are almost always discussing the book itself.

As far as outlets go, this source mentions that outlets that reviews the book include the Boston Globe, New York Times, San Francisco Bulletin, Brooklyn Eagle, Baltimore Sun, New York Post, and The Nation; the last outlet seems to have done a rather extensive review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work now, but I'll try to expand this more later. I want to check the academic/scholarly paper databases - the amount of times books discussed or mentioned this book, I think there's likely to be quite a bit out there that I could easily find. There's definitely more out there not as easily locatable, but it does exist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack's work on it; there now seem to be plenty of sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters

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

The list contains only primary sources. WP:NLIST requires independent reliable sources that discuss the characters as a group. I haven't found any. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 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 Lists. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. Not all of the content should be merged, but that article relies on this one to cover the characters so some of this content should be moved to that one.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the series, but Scholar finds content for Calhoun in this context in Strange Novel Worlds: Essays on Star Trek Tie-In Fiction by Caron, ISBN 978-1476653358. I can see two of three hits in Preview, which looks like a solid three pages of commentary on the character pp. 198-200. Calhoun is also mentioned in a 2018 CBR listicle of best Trek captains. That's kinda thin, but there's a raft of Memory Alpha and other Trek Fandom, non-RS, book reviews, and other associated content with which one could certainly build a Calhoun article if one were to be found notable. Merging is obviously better than deletion, but I'm questioning whether other characters might be as notable as Calhoun, and, if so, whether there is enough RS commentary on the characters such that multiple would be notable. PAGEDECIDE would allow us to keep a list instead of two notable but thin character articles. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and now I see Mackenzie Calhoun already has a standalone article, albeit one not previously WP:SS linked to the list. So, one of our options (with appropriate notice and feedback, of course) is merging Calhoun's standalone article to the list or to the series article. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as three primary sources do not an article make (after 16.33 years, no less), nor suffice to be added to another article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Star Trek: New Frontier is not notable and hence should not exist either? Your comment on primary sources not sufficing for addition to another article isn't policy based, as primary sources can be used when non-controversial on a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're saying that it's not enough to build an article on by itself. Articles need reliable, in-depth citations from secondary sources. We can use primary sources, but that needs secondary coverage to back it up. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let other editors speak for themselves, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Fourthords: in case they would like to clarify themselves. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow. Notability is not sui generis, nor is it inherited. Regardless of the notability of Star Trek: New Frontier, the discussion here is if the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are notable as a set. If the only sources providing commentary, details, insights, etc. on the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are primary, then we should not have an article on them, as they are not notable independently of the show they are part of. In this case, there is no reason why the article on the show should not include them. If it is a question of article length (which should be supported by reliable, independent sources), then the characters must be of such little importance - as evidenced by the fact that other parts of the show have received so much commentary or analysis but not the characters - that the portion on characters can be reduced to a very brief section. Shazback (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. There are certainly secondary sources discussing characters like that provided above, or The Sex Is Out of This World, where there is in-depth discussion on Burgoyne (and other characters reactions). But currently I don't have the time to look myself if there is enough to fullfill WP:LISTN or not. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Textblock

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

Single sentence dictionary definition cited to a dubious non-sigcov source that does not help notability. I don't think this is the kind of topic that can possibly be its own article. Not opposed redirecting somewhere but no idea where - maybe some kind of glossary of publishing terms, but IDK if we have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bookbinding#Methods, which uses the term several times. Probably helpful to copy the def there as a parenthetical the first time the term is used, so I guess this would be a merge. Should not be a stand-alone article; the term is only useful within the context of bookbinding. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. There's a lot of content on textblock construction in bookbinding books within google books discussing the various ways different cultures constructed and repair textblocks with bookbindings. An article would theoretically be possible if we were to compare different textblock constructions from say Japan versus the Middle East versus Europe, or even the way constructing textblocks has changed across time with different materials. I do think there is room to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. Some examples of sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you gave though is all in the context of the bookbinding process - it could maybe be two paragraphs and that would duplicate the book binding article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be some overlap... A redirect here is difficult though, because essentially the textblock is the main body of a book. This is a term that should be covered in the book article itself (which interestingly doesn't currently name the different parts of a book which I think is a fundamental content gap), as fundamentally books since the time of the codex can't exist without a textblock unless its a scroll. It's such a fundamental concept that to put it into the book binding article alone doesn't seem the right way to cover this.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair but it's not like there's any content to merge here, and it shouldn't have its own page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this page, it seemed to me that there should be some place on Wikipedia that covers this significant type of object, but I also was not sure the best way to do it. Something like a glossary or significant chunk of the bookbinding page seems fine to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stardew Valley Guidebook

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

The only source that might contribute to notability is the Polygon one, which is surprisingly OK. All the others are unreliable or press-release type, which does not help notability, a search found nothing else.

Also, I have never seen an article on a guidebook before, not that that impacts notability. Do we have any others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Video games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took as examples articles like The Cairo Guidebook, The London Guidebook, and Hero Builder's Guidebook. Ersene (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples. The first one has two pieces of reception so is notable - unsure about the other two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stardew Valley#Legacy, insufficient significant coverage for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an important review from the CBR site. Ersene (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a listicle so I don't think it's enough. CBR is also Valnet which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, listicle + Valnet is not a great combo. Only reinforces the idea that it's not a notable book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stardew Valley. Not sure it belongs in a "legacy" section. But I support generally merging to that article.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, lists the issues of a barely/non-notable magazine and card game, unreferenced, info unencyclopaedic DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 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. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have PRODed this, but there was a previous AfD (which closed as no consenseus, and had no policy-based remarks). An AtD might be a merge, but I do not believe that a good idea, bcs it will just be a listing of the enemy aliens.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (minor merge) to Doctor Who – Battles in Time in the spirit of WP:AtD. I don't think this topic fullfills WP:LISTN, but brief references to the topic do appear in secondary sources, so it's not out of the question someone might use this content in the future. Doctor Who – Battles in Time is the natural target and has a listing of the four special issues. Lastly, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is small(and would if smaller after it is made more encyclopedic), so any listing necessary can be made there too. Redirects are cheap, but so are deleting them- it's an unlikely search term, ppl will almost always search it by "Battle in Time" only. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at statistics, this article had an average of one hit per day. Not a lot, but not nothing either (considering that redirects are cheap...). The target article has an average of six hits per day. That's still the same order of magnitude. So while I agree that most users will search for "Battles in Time" only, almost always seems an overstatement. With regard to any listing necessary can be made there too, I agree at this point; I think this strengthens the argument for a redirect; and preserving the current version in the history could be helpful for that. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same view average, not search average (and I don't think there is a way to find that out). There as in "Battles in Time"- because any listing will not be this detailed, and does not need a page. (P.S.- I usually don't reply this much to the !voters, I just don't want this article to result in a "non-consensus" again). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that, but in the light of my previous arguments my conclusion is still redirect rather than deletion. So I guess only more opinions can bring us to something approaching consensus. Daranios (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more opinions would help reach consensus. My motive was just to show that we agree on the facts, and only disagree on whether that means "Delete" or "Redirect". (And thank you for this constructive discussion) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator. This seems to fall into directory territory given the lack of sources commenting on these articles. As Doctor Who – Battles in Time exists, I do not feel a redirect is necessary. Only article linking to this list is Doctor Who – Battles in Time and spelling redirects, which can also be removed / deleted. Shazback (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shazback. I concur that a redirect isn't necessary and not very helpful to those looking for the card game Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Doctor Who – Battles in Time per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformare l'organizzazione dei luoghi di detenzione. Persone transgender e gender nonconforming tra diritti e identità

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

No sources in the article discuss this book, only a few citations with no discussion of the book. A search found no sources that help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Cavarrone 09:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. No substantial reviews, or any sort of critical engagement with the material. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 23 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]
Redirect to Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures#2011 or delete. I wasn't able to find anything to establish that this was notable. The overall Monthly Adventures series is notable, but not all of the story arcs are independently notable of the main series. To be honest, the majority of these are likely not independently notable. Doctor Who is a wonderful, notable series but so much content is put out that most outlets (that Wikipedia would see as reliable, notability giving sources) would not be able to keep up with the releases and still cover other content. Doesn't mean that some of them might not gain coverage enough to be notable, but it does make it far less likely. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures#2011. Doctor Who FAQ verfies the publication information and it appears at the target. A redirect is helpful to the reader and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Daranios and ReaderofthePack. Redirects are cheap, and this looks like a title someone could search. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:07, 22 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now). I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). I don't think this rises to notability at this time. He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 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 [5]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions