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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

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[edit]

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012[edit]

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

This is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:

* the 2016 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.D. Investigators[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and WP:NOTPLOT. Could redirect to List of Catch-22 characters as AtD JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV both apply if this hasn't earned enough reception in reliable independent sources. Older books like this can sometimes have hidden coverage deep in other print sources, but WP:BEFORE indicates there isn't enough to separate this topic from the main book article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings[edit]

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and secondary sources like [Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature]. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burroughs File[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and claims on the page can be removed per WP:V. Not seeing notability outside of the author William S. Burroughs JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find coverage to argue that this meets WP:GNG. Pinging Ghosts of Europa, who might know of some sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Corinthian Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 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) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny - Appears to be a completely non-notable licensed book that has no coverage in reliable sources. The one review being used as a source is someone's personal blog, and thus not a reliable source. Searches did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews, outside of simple product listings. It is already listed in the appropriate section of the list of books its belongs to, and as there is no content to merge, it should be redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Jfire (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry[edit]

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

Completely unsourced barring quotes. No indication of importance. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic, so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify, convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well (novel)[edit]

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

Non notable book, fails WP:NBOOK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 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) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Series Adventures per WP:ATD. Little or no sourced content to merge. No reviews in WP:LIBRARY or ISFDB. The review cited in the article is self-published. Jfire (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Engineering for Beginners[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent sourcing has not been found. Prod tag was removed by the book's author, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Engineering, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To my mind NBOOK and GNG are almost the same here: we need multiple reliable in-depth independent sources about the book, most likely published reviews. We don't have any and I couldn't find any. Even if we take a laxer view of NBOOK, the article's claim that this is "recommended by several universities" does not pass #4 (that is only for books that are, themselves, the object of study in courses at multiple schools, not for books used as textbooks of courses about something else). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're interested in whether secondary attention has been paid to the book, and that's not being shown. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy of Fear[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines for books. ltb d l (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some articles after all which discuss this, like [7], [8], [9], [10], and others, even if these are not the most stellar of sources. I did not have the time to look for sources on the individual books. If there should be a majority against keeping this, there should at least be a merge of concise plot summary to, I guess, John Whitman, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article had no refs so I put the refs found by the editor above into the article. The series has been discussed in third party media. Its a notable series and passes GNG. Desertarun (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon[edit]

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

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 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) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Wolves[edit]

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

This article fails to list the notability of its subject, and does not display media coverage. The article was originally a redirect to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks, which may say something about the book itself's notability. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to, I guess, List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives as WP:AtD. There is only one review, so this seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Still, what has already been collected should not simply be lost in deletion. If anyone knows of any more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions[edit]