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

Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time

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

Nonnotable non-Asimov's book series tagged for two years woth no independent refs. --Altenmann >talk 04:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The author appears to be notable (entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction), so at minimum this should redirect to William F. Wu. A quick search turned up some reviews for individual entries in the series, such as this for Marauder, this for Dictator, and this for Invader. TompaDompa (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Books of no apparent notability, they are NOT by Asimov but simply trade off his name as marketing to children. They could, if necessary, be adequately covered by listing them at the author's page. Spideog (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons Book Award

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

Fails the wp:gng. The links to the council website are both dead and not on the internet archive. The only sources, I can find, are 2 articles in the Dorset Echo (a local newspaper), blogs and social media. Rolluik (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, Awards, Events, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears defunct, and probably was active only a year or two with minor local coverage. -- GreenC 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dorset Echo counts as one source for notability qualifying, so this is a GNG failure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Wobegon

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sources in this article are podcasts, websites, and other unreliable sources. The few sources that are reliable talk about A Prairie Home Companion more generally (which could be a redirect target). Once you remove all the unreliable / unsourced information, there is almost nothing to keep or even merge. Jontesta (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of WP:SIGCOV as a concept in-and-of-itself: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Additionally, the fact that it is the setting for a dozen books by Keillor. Definitely meets WP:FICTION; it is not so insignificant of a thing that it falls under WP:BKMERGE. To quote one of the above articles: "Breathes there a soul who hasn't heard of Lake Wobegon?" It had/has enough cultural relevance to be on its own and not simply merged into A Prairie Home Companion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Völkisch Ideology and the Roots of Nazism

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

Redlinked author, no sources in article, I wasn't able to find any on Google. Prezbo (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Tourist Guide to Lancre

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

A WP:BEFORE search shows only unreliable sources or bare mentions. This article has not passed WP:SIGCOV. A redirect target could be Discworld. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Discworld#"Mapps", which already has similar content for the subsequent book (Death's Domain). I don't see significant coverage to meet WP:NBOOK requirements for a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to above target. I afded another book in this series a while ago. I think the best solution would be an article on the Mapp sub series, but we do not have that yet, so to here they go for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I was surprised a while ago that some of this Discworld spin-offs are notable (User:Cunard found the refs), but this one, in the current state, is a pure catalogue entry with zero indication of notability. I could change my vote if sources are found, but I am not seeing any in my BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping, Piotrus (talk · contribs). I've provided some sources below. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discworld#"Mapps" (a future Discworld Mapps article notwithstanding). I does appear here and there in secondary sources, but in my limited search I did not find enough content for a stand-alone article. In case anyone finds more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I have found one source that mentions A Tourist Guide to Lancre (http://hdl.handle.net/1946/35081), but it doesn't provide SIGCOV; rather, it uses the book to discuss a separate topic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Butler, Andrew M. (2007). An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Oxford: Greenwood World Publishing. p. 373–374. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides 434 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Subtitled A Discworld Mapp Including a Pyctorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a description of a picturefque and charming walk in thys charming and hospitable country. It was originally published by Corgi in an edition of 75,000 and has been translated into Czech. It was devised by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Briggs, with a view of Lancre painted by Paul Kidby. The third Discworld map, this time depicting Lancre, an area in the Ramtops which is notable for its Witches. As usual the pattern is an illustrated booklet relating to the area in question, and the map itself. This time there is no explanation as to the process of mapping, but then unlike Ankh-Morpork and the Discworld there was less evidence to reconcile."
  The book notes: "It also contains 'An additional Vue of Lankre' by Nanny Ogg which offers further description of Lancre and its witches, and reads as if it were dictated to a scribe — as no doubt it was, for the sum of a dollar. This is supplemented with her account of Lancre folk lore, such as the Lancre Oozer, A Mummers Play and the Witch Trials."
2. Alton, Anne Hiebert (2014). "Coloring in Ocarine: Visual Semiotics and Discworld". In Alton, Anne Hiebert; Spruiell, William C. (eds.). Discworld and the Disciplines: Critical Approaches to the Terry Pratchett Works. Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-0-7864-7464-6. ProQuest 2134885875. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 321 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Like the ﬁrst two Discworld maps, A Tourist Guide to Lancre: A Discworld Mapp includes prefatory material written by Pratchett and Briggs, along with short essays serving as introductions to the area by the ﬁctional champion walker, Eric Wheelbrace, and Gytha Ogg, as well as a lengthier extract from Wheelbrace’s A Pictorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a concluding note by Nanny Ogg on Folk Lore of Lancre. Their essays are decorated with a few small illustrations of items such as a compass and a set of wire-cutters—indicating Wheelbrace’s habits and attitudes towards the thorny issue of right-of-way in the countryside—as well as a stone footbridge, a well, and a view (subtly presented from the side) of the Long Man."
  The book notes: "The Lancre map provides an excellent sense of the sheer verticality of the Kingdom, as well as presenting a better awareness than the novels do of the distance between Granny’s cottage and Nanny’s house in town. Like the other maps, by indicating a sense of geographic proportions it reinforces the idea of the geographic space of the Discworld, however imaginary."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Burrows, Marc (2020). The Magic of Terry Pratchett. Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52676-550-5. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Two more 'mapps', A Tourist Guide to Lancre and Death's Domain, followed in 1998 and 1999, though neither sold as well as the first two, with the final mapp receiving a print run which was less than half of the first. Rather than true maps, the Lancre and Death's Domain fold-outs featured detailed aerial views with artwork handled by another addition to the Discworld family, Paul Kidby."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Tourist Guide to Lancre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. The finds by Cunard are decent, but primarily are just summaries of what the book is as well as some minor commentary on sales figures. Works on Wikipedia need to be covered in a non-summary style that show their impact, which the demonstrated sources don't provide. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jontesta (talk · contribs), Jfire (talk · contribs), PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs), Daranios (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), and Significa liberdade (talk · contribs), I expanded and sourced the article. I think there is enough secondary commentary and reporting to support a standalone article and that a merge to Discworld#"Mapps" would be undue weight. Would you take a look at these new sources and the expanded article? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. While the reception still is not enormous, I think together with the history section it fullfills the requirements of WP:NOTPLOT and we have a non-stubby, fully referenced article, therefore fullfilling the notability requirements. Thanks for taking improving! Daranios (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hauptmann's Ladder

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

I found one alright article on this and nothing else. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [6], which isn't enough. The one source used in the article now is fine, but we need more to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NBOOK. I found [7] as well, but I think it's WP:UGC. Although the book was published by a university press, the author is a private practice lawyer, which may explain why it wasn't reviewed academically. Jfire (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfire I don’t think Reader’s Favorite is UGC, but I believe it is paid, which is also not usable. Just for reference PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: No reviews found through Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Google Scholar, ProQuest, or JSTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Redirect to Lindbergh kidnapping#Alternative theories per Cunard, who has come to the rescue yet again. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lindbergh kidnapping#Alternative theories (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the book is mentioned already, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The only strong source I could find was this article in the Courier Journal. This entry in Foreword Reviews gave the book the "2014 Indies Winner Gold, True Crime (Adult Nonfiction)", but it does not provide significant coverage. This article in Hudson Valley One is largely an interview. This entry in Poughkeepsie Journal is just a calendar listing of a book signing. I also checked the book's website for links to reliable sources but could not find any. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs), Oaktree b (talk · contribs), Jfire (talk · contribs), and Significa liberdade (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Lindbergh kidnapping#Alternative theories (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already mentioned there I do not oppose a redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support a redirect. Jfire (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian literature translated into English

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

This strikes me as an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:CROSSCAT; perfectly appropriate for a category but failing WP:NLIST under WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the massive volume of potential entries in this list. In a WP:BEFORE I find discussion of the concept of Ukrainian literature in translation but not a discussion of these subjects as a group (and the selection of them, if not indiscriminate, appears to be an exercise in original research). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Lists, and Ukraine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked online and there is a lot of SIGCOV about the topic, as noted above (happy to share if needed). I think that the better discussion may be a page split and/or a rename, rather than a deletion, to address to concerns about the page being too long. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please share what you found that covers the grouping of items as a set per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost trivial and dubious criteria. Lorstaking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis (Rps BOZ 44)

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

This specific manuscript does not appear to be notable, as there is only one source for it with anything approaching sigcov. There appear to be several other items with the same name, that may or may not be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probert Encyclopaedia

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

Cannot find much, if anything on this. Not opposed to merging or redirecting somewhere given how old the article is. If what is described in the article is true I am surprised this isn't notable, or that I cannot find mention of it somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AntoloGaia. Sesso, genere e cultura degli anni '70

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

No reviews, does not pass WP:GNG or NBOOK. The "reception" is the book blurb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Part of a walled garden of articles related to the author. Cavarrone 11:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book as usuual - Living Textbook of Hand Surgery is work in progress as a peer reviewed platform teaching hand surgery using text and videos for surgical techniques. Maybee category "book" is misleading. Woller (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't pass the GNG either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

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

Per prior discussion(s) on article talk (which have stalled out for several weeks), this article is essentially a largely OVERLAP’d POVFORK with serious neutrality issues. The discussion of this topic is already extensively covered and properly sourced in articles such as War in the Hebrew Bible, The Bible and violence, and Judaism and violence; as is the modern day relevance of particular passages in Amalek. The contents of these discussions are neither so long that they warrant SIZESPLIT, nor are they so notable as to require a page outside their discussions on the relevant pages. Sinclairian (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, and Judaism. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn’t obvious, my vote lies on delete/merge. Sinclairian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of this is covered on other articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I don't see an argument for deletion here. I see no evidence that the article is so rife with neutrality that WP:TNT is appropriate. Nobody has disputed notability, only where this material should be covered - which is not a matter for AfD, particularly when multiple plausible merge targets exist. AfD cannot replace normal talk page discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Vanamonde93 sums the situation up perfectly. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input (my emph., and again per V93, the neutrality concerns are insufficiently egregious (by spades) to qualify for the level of severity required to warrant deletion, especially when alternatives are available). Talk page discussion and possible merge/redirects do not take place at AfD. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the Bible and violence. I question whether this page scope is fundamentally a SYNTHetic premise. The word "genocide" isn't mentioned in anything as old as the bible, as that word dates to 1944. It's true that we could still have an article about a modern concept of this. But, should we, or would this be handled better elsewhere? I don't see enough detail or sources in depth about this specific topic to handle as a separate article, personally, so I'm ending up here. Andre🚐 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:SYNTH if other people have already applied the modern concept of genocide to the stories told in the Hebrew Bible. That by itself doesn't mean that an article with this title is the best place to talk about the subject, of course, but the idea isn't original. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, totaling hundreds of pages, that were cited in the original version of the article and have more than enough content to support an extensive article. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per vanamonde. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per vanamonde Codonified (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is almost certainly better covered as a section of War in the Hebrew Bible, but that's a content issue that doesn't really belong at AfD. None of the potential issues require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, making sure any usable content is covered at Amalek, The Bible and violence and War in the Hebrew Bible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a content fork to War in the Hebrew Bible. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Andre that this is WP:synth and WP:OR. It is a Bible study rather than an Encyclopedia article. It contains no agreed upon definition of genocide, so there is no way to tell if the topic is notable - or if it is even valid. "If the modern concept of genocide has been discussed" is not sufficient to warrant an article on it. This article is not neutral. It takes a position: Mainstream biblical scholarship does not regard this part of the Bible to be faithfully depicting historical events. However, it could still be concluded that God commanded genocide. Which, btw, is the opposite of what the cited source says about encouraging scholars to take seriously the widely held conclusion that ideology alone is an inadequate explanation for genocide. If this article isn't deleted, the content should be wiped, and someone without a bone to pick should redo the entire thing from scratch. Please don't merge it as is. It's too poorly done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Vanamonde93 – Beyond the lack of a straightforward deletion reason, or evidence of an intractible issue as discussed on talk, the main suggestion here appears to be for a merger, but this would have been better handled with a merger discussion. On the matter of mergers, both War in the Hebrew Bible and The Bible and violence are already lengthy pages that are approaching the size where they would potentially be candidates for a split in any case, so the benefits of such a merger – let alone the question of whether the material presented here would be due on those pages – merits a proper, dedicated discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I’ve come to realize that a merger proposal should have been the initial course of action, but I didn’t know such a procedure existed at the time. I figure that I’ll let this discussion run its course just in case there’s a sudden spike in discussion, and then create a merger proposal once this is actually closed. Sinclairian (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If a an article with a blatant and strong POV fails to satisfy notability : it definitely is better off deleted for possible malicious intent. But that really isn't the case with Google Scholar returning 90k hits of the two terms being used together , whenever from the perspective of religious theology or its cultural and ethical influences. The article has some nice reputable sources to build on too.

The word 'Genocide' isn't even a century old , but that still doesn't mean that the various attempts to erase entire identities by eliminating its people through either assimilation or mass destruction didn't happen before 1944. Dismissing the article because calling man-made wipeouts before the Holocaust is "anachronistic" isn't really a sound reason as it seems, especially when Lemkin himself used the Albigensian Crusade as an example in his works when he conceived the concrete concept of genocide that we know today , and we already have many ancient precedents. All that means a very rudimentary , no-legalese concept of genocide can indeed go back far enough to Biblical times ; the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Just because an article's initial revisions may seem 'biased' to some editors , doesn't mean we can just do away with it entirely. We can instead simply rewrite it from scratch if need be. The article has potential for interesting content , and the case for deletion isn't really that solid. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's not yet consensus as to whether the SYNTH/CFORK issues, if any, warrant deletion, or whether such issues should be addressed in merger or redirection discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as discussed above. The sourcing is fine and the topic appears notable. Neutrality is another issue, but it's not for AfD to decide. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Awards, and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2009-08 (closed as ✓ keep)

Related discussions: 2017-08 Traci Hunter Abramson (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in the Deseret News, and some in scholarly journals [8], and here, but this is more of a mention [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all available sources such as Deseret News are LSD-affiliated (so "lots of coverage" over there do not count for notability). The journal link above is literally a sentence in a note. Nothing close to significant coverage in neutral secondary reliable sources. Cavarrone 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hunter, J. Michael (2013). Mormons and Popular Culture: Mormons and Popular Culture The Global Influence of an American Phenomenon. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-313-39168-2. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In addition, LDStorymakers sponsors and hosts the Whitney Awards Academy, founded in 2007 by author Robison Wells. Novels are nominated throughout the year by readers and then voted on by retailers, editors, authors, and other LDS publishing professionals. Awards are given in various genres and for Best Novel of the Year and Best Novel by a New Author. The Whitney award program is named after 19th-century Home Literature proponent Orson F. Whitney, and the organization uses a well-known Whitney quote as its motto: "We will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own." The Whitney awards recognize novels by all kinds of Mormon authors, including those publishing in the national market. While the program arose from the LDS popular fiction side of the cultural divide, some Mormon literary works have been honored with top awards, including the novels Road to Heaven by Coke Newell (Zarahemla Books, 2007) and Bound on Earth by Angela Hallstrom (Parables Publishing, 2008); both of these titles also received the AML's top novel award in their respective years."
2. Clark, Cody (2009-05-02). "Whitney Awards honor best in LDS fiction". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney ... The Whitney Awards were established in honor of Whitney's vision, to encourage the growth of Latter-day Saint literature. On April 25, the group announced the winners of its awards for work published in 2008. The big winner is Sandra Grey, who claimed the Best Novel of the Year prize for "Traitor," in which a woman goes to France during World War II to join the French Resistance. Angela Hallstrom won the Best Novel by a New Author prize for "Bound on Earth." Other winners are ... The Whitney Awards, begun in 2007, are bestowed annually."
3. Rappleye, Christine (2018-05-12). "And the winners for the Whitney Awards on its 10th anniversary are ..." Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The Deseret News is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). I consider it to be sufficiently independent of the Whitney Awards, which is put on by LDSStorymakers, to help to contribute to notability if there are sources non-affiliated with the LDS that cover the topic. The article notes: "Fifty-one novels, the works of 50 authors, were named as finalists across 10 categories for the awards that recognize novels by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the 10th anniversary of the Whitney Awards. ... In the youth categories, “By Your Side” by Kasie West won the young adult general category. “Ones and Zeroes” by Dan Wells and “Blood Rose Rebellion” by Rosalyn Eves were the winners in the young adult speculative and young adult fantasy categories, respectively. ... Author Robison Wells received the Outstanding Achievement Award. He founded the Whitney Awards in 2007 and is the past president of the Whitney Wards. ... The Whitney Awards were founded by Wells in 2007 and named after early LDS apostle Orson F. Whitney."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Clark, Cody (2007-06-30). "Awards for LDS authors". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney, an early apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... LDSStorymakers and author Robison Wells announced earlier this month the creation of an award for LDS writers in Whitney's name. The first Whitney Awards, for works published in 2007, will be handed out at the LDSStorymakers annual conference next spring. LDSStorymakers is a group created to encourage the growth of writing and publication among Latter-day Saints. Wells is a resident of West Jordan and the author of three novels published by Covenant Communications."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Whitney Awards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Oaktree b's examples and the fact this is essentially the LDS' Oscars and Tony awards. Of course, given the LDS, that doesn't mean much in the Grand scheme of things, but still.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions