Wiki English
Wiki EnglishWiki DeutschWiki Nederlands

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Literature

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature.

< Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Literature
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Literature Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Literature

Laith Saad Abdullah

No evidence of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalek Generation

Fails WPNBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by an Angel (novel)

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisms Across the Globe

There is very little to indicate that this book series is notable. While individual books and authors might be notable (as shown by reviews, citations, and scholarly coverage), there is nothing to indicate that this is notable as a "book series". This stands in contrast to for example The Cambridge History of the British Empire, which is covered by RS as a notable book series. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (fictional ship)

Only sourced to the novel itself and the article is only plot with no real-world commentary, besides from its comparison to RMS Queen Mary. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like this is not independently notable, but please ping me if good sources are identified. Maybe some of the content could be added to The Poseidon Adventure (novel), although that article is currently only sourced to the book itself. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the commonality between the stories varies wildly so this seems relevant Sansbarry (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only content present is simply brief plot summaries for the book and each of its adaptations, all of which are already covered better at each of their respective pages. Even that extremely small bit of "real-world" information regarding the production of the first movie is already included in that film's article. I am not really finding anything covering the fictional ship as a topic on its own where it would make sense to have a separate article on it, rather than just covering the relevant plot elements on each of the respective articles. I don't really see this as a likely search term at all, but if people would prefer a redirect, I would suggest having the target be the Poseidon (disambiguation) page, where the book and all of its adaptations are already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any reviews of the book besides user reviews and a few brief mentions here and there. As it stands, it appears the book is not adequately covered from independent pubs failing WP:BOOKCRIT. X (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

* the 2015 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]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Radio 4 is a single UK radio, Book of the Week is one program on the radio station. So we're into a very small audience before asking who would be looking for this list? The answer being nobody. So the nom is correct this information isn't encyclopedic. And its unreferenced because nobody would ever care to talk about the topic in reliable third party media. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of em. Redundant lists with no encyclopedic value. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. X (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.D. Investigators

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]

  • 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

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]
        You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 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]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further 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]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burroughs File

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]

    Delete - I looked through a dozen academic books about Burroughs by Barry Miles, Jenny Skerl, Timothy Murphy, etc. I didn’t see any references to this collection beyond offhand references like “This letter is included in The Burroughs File.” Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I've found some brief mentions in books referring to it but nothing SIG/of depth that warrants notability. X (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Corinthian Project

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry

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]

Jershon

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) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

Tags:

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Literature Literaturewikiproject Deletion Sorting/Literature Literature proposed deletionswikiproject Deletion Sorting/LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English:

IlluminatiThe Goat LifeJoe BidenMariah CareyDelhi CapitalsKristen WiigMaundy ThursdaySonam Wangchuk (engineer)Get OutBlake LivelyBaltimoreHiroyuki SanadaPremaluBarbara TverskyPrince Harry, Duke of SussexFIFA World CupOpinion polling for the next United Kingdom general electionRicky BhuiTyla (South African singer)WordleGoat DaysShaquille O'NealBlackRockTheodore RooseveltQuentin TarantinoU.S. stateThe Gentlemen (2024 TV series)MadonnaLisa Marie PresleyVirat KohliList of NBA championsCristiano RonaldoCorey HaimList of states and territories of the United StatesMel GibsonMichael JacksonEgyptDelicious in DungeonPhilippinesUnited KingdomIsrael–Hamas warMel BJennifer LawrenceCatJeffrey EpsteinJordan CameronEuphoria (American TV series)Martin Scorsese filmographyList of highest-grossing filmsEkaterina AlexandrovaAaliyahMaura TierneyFTXBade Miyan Chote Miyan (2024 film)Julia RobertsSouth KoreaKim PorterList of UFC eventsLucian GraingeDavid RubensteinSobáSri LankaHardik PandyaCharles BronsonMister SinisterMia KhalifaWikipediaHaitiJoely RichardsonMarcus GarveySexJesusRoman EmpireBrittany SnowMadgaon ExpressShōgun (novel)Islamic StateResident Alien (TV series)🡆 More