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

Revisionist Press

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

Incredibly obscure book publisher with 0 sigcov. There's a few passing mentions that accuse this of being a front for the CIA (not joking) and little else, and a handful of complaints over financial issues and a lack of response (also all passing). Its parent company Gordon Press appears to be equally non-notable. The company that bought it, Run for Cover, also appears to be non notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Lawrence Edition

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

This appears to be a series of critical reprints of the works of D. H. Lawrence. There is no sigcov, just the editions and the people citing the editions. Any publication details that exist in sourcing (as passing mentions) seem that they would make more sense to go on the page of the individual works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D. H. Lawrence with selective merger. There is some coverage in GBooks and GScholar. James500 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 No opposition to a redirect or merger, but could you link some of the coverage? I honestly couldn't find anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

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

I could not find anything about this dictionary, but it is admittedly in Norwegian and my source searching may have been impaired by that. There are a decent amount of non-sigcov hits for a dictionary which makes me suspect there is something I am unable to find, particularly due to the language thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Norway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why did you nominate it to be deleted instead of asking a Norwegian speaker? Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who would I have asked? This article has sat untouched for twenty years. Afd is the only appreciable way to actually get eyes on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. C F A 💬 03:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Are these all referring to the same dictionary? This article seems to be on the illustrated version. The title is common but I don't think they're all the same work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CFA, your search is unfortunately a bit misguided. Every single one of your sources are undoubtedly about Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB). Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well I'm not going to be of much help then. I wouldn't know where to look for anything else. C F A 💬 14:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way you should be commended for your effort Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's one review for 1993 edition: https://tidsskrift.dk/lexn/article/download/19107/16740 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're halfway there. I'm still confused as to the scope of this page because I can't figure out if it's referring to a series of Riksmål dictionaries or just a 1993 edition. Are there sources for later editions of this same work? Because that would be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 1993 edition Norsk illustrert ordbok was a variant of the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok, which I found significant coverage for. The dictionary constitutes a bridge between bokmål, which is an official written form of Norwegian, and riksmål which is an unofficial written form maintained by a private organization - and was issued to replace the older riksmål dictionary which was going out of style in the 1990s. I would rather write an article about the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok and merge the successors into that one. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to this proposal, seems ideal to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La sangre sobre la tierra

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

Found no significant coverage on this book. Redirect to author Alejandro Carrión? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuichi Sakamoto. Conversazioni

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

I found a few passing mentions here and here but no sigcov. There is something here; it's in Japanese and I do not understand it but it does not look like sigcov either.

Redirect to author Massimo Milano? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massimo Milano (the author). It looks like a niche publication for an esoteric audience, and at least in English I can find no in-depth reviews or other coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:

whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)

how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)

the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)

whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)

how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)

whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)

Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonk on the Head

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

There may be reviews of this book; I couldn't find them, and that award, Ottawa Book Award, I am not convinced that a city-wide award automatically confers notability on a book. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a single review on newspapers.com (strangely already clipped). More reviews from Canadian publications on proquest ([1] [2] [3] [4]. This might also be a review but I don't have access. The Globe and Mail review is probably the best one, especially since it's a paper of record. All very Canadian but a non-terrible article could be built from this, and it's far over NBOOKs anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the only book the author John-James Ford has ever written, so I think his article should be merged to this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough coverage above to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items

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

Unsourced. No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can find reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this book. I tried and couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from a reply elsewhere that this "is just one of 461,644 pages that have been marked as "needing additional references"" so it seems a rather pointless exercise to delete this one and leave the other 461,643 pages alone.

As the author of the article, I have no strong feelings about its deletion or not - the only effect of removing it is to make Wikipedia ever-so-slightly less useful as a reference tool, and if your objective in life is to weaken Wikipedia's usefulness then by all means go ahead. Philsp (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp, inappropriate articles are being deleted continuously. Roughly 600,000 articles have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process, and we have two other deletion processes as well. Our objective is to ensure that articles comply with our policies and guidelines. This one clearly doesn't. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I am no fan of eugenics and can only mourn those 600,000 articles you have deleted, many of which would, I am sure, have been very useful contributions to Wikipedia - certainly more so than myriads of articles that DO meet "your" policies and guidelines. Philsp (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have written elsewhere that "This is a book that I created and published". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fredric Brown bibliography#Mysteries, where it is listed. I searched all the places I could, newspapers.com, gale, proquest, archive.org/google books, got nothing. It is listed there though and it provides context as to what exactly this was collecting, so why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - non-notable self-published compilation of interest only to completists and Milwaukee SF readers like myself. The creator of the article is also the compiler/publisher, and does not understand that Wikipedia is not the ISFDb. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trowel (journal)

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

Non-notable student publication that fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. I cannot find sufficient sources to establish even the basic facts (like whether this student-run journal is even still operating). The only source I can find, that contains anything at all, is the publication's own (wordpress) website. And that hasn't been updated since mid-2019. Five years ago. Where is the indication that this short-lived(?) journal is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", or "frequently cited by other reliable sources", or "historically important in its subject area"? Where is the coverage in independent/reliable/verifiable sources? I certainly can't find any. An entry in the "Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals" says that it "does not reach the inclusion threshold" (as its distribution/circulation is too low?). It is also hard to overlook that the article was seemingly created by a COI/SPA contributor (in quasi-promotional format about its 10th edition).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Found nothing except a bit on something about theses they publish which is not helpful or sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to redirect anywhere it should be the publisher University College Dublin. Redirect-to-lists for journals are annoying. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal isn't mentioned in University College Dublin, and I doubt it would be due weight to add mention of it; it's already mentioned in list of archaeology journals. Could you expand on why redirects to lists are a bad thing for journals, beyond being "annoying" to you? – Joe (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're often used as citations (though this one would probably not be) and a blue link from that to a list is misleading. I also question the utility of it. It doesn't really add anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of archaeology journals as an ATD. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi @Joe. While I like a good WP:ATD-R as much as the next editor (perhaps even more so), I don't think I can support it here. I mean, what (reliable/independent) sources are we relying upon for even the basics in the proposed target entry? Even its placement, in the "active publications" section is questionable IMO. As, per Talk:Trowel (journal), there is nothing to indicate that it is "active"? The last entry (on the subject's own primary/wordpress website) indicates that an (PDF/online only?) edition was last released in 2019. And, even UCD's own library hasn't seemingly received a copy of it since 2018? ("Latest Received: 2018 v.19"). That we have to interpret from, effectively, the lack of sources or mentions is far from ideal. I'd question whether we even have sufficient sourcing to support the entry WP:WITHIN the proposed target/list (certainly, to my eye, there is nothing to support its inclusion in the "active" section...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list states the journal's name, publisher, year of first publication, and ISSN. Which of those is not verifiable? We don't need independent sources for a redirect. If the journal is no longer published, then it can just be moved to the other section of the list. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The journal is a reliable primary source for its own contents and does include publication details: [5] [6]. In any event, a search for "Trowel"+"department of archaeology"+dublin rapidly brings up citations in GBooks, book reviews [7] [8] and other commentary [9]. WP:WITHIN is an essay arguing against the creation of standalone articles, not redirects. If the entry is in the wrong section of the list, then either move it to the correct section, or merge the two sections (the second section is very short, and the division into sections makes the list more "dynamic" than it perhaps needs to be). James500 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of archaeology journals per Joe Roe. The journal is included in the list, so it is the appropriate target. A row anchor should be included in the table. Linking to a row anchor is not misleading. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkerspot (magazine)

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

Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable defunct magazine. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also didn't find reliable sources. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Canadian Wildlife Federation. That article should have a "publications" section. There is apparently independent coverage: [10]. [I think I should point out that "self publishing" is when an author pays the cost of publishing his book. The usual objection to self publishing is that, if you have to pay someone to print your book, that implies that your book is unmerchantable and unsaleable because it is of low quality. I do not see how that logic can be applied here. The fact that a source is primary, non-independent, or even autobiographical, does not make it ipso facto self-published or necessarily completely unreliable for all purposes.] James500 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Screams

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

No actual reviews found, just interviews and press release type material from niche horror publications, which aren't even reviews. The best source is this, which while including an interview is preceded by several paragraphs of evaluative seemingly independent material, so I would count it. However, there is nothing else. Could add to List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Very week, the Bloody Disgusting source is a RS per Project Horror, and I've found this [11], which seems ok. No book reviews I can find, but two articles about the book. That's about all I can pull up. I'm happy to revisit if others can find better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article you linked is what I mentioned in my nom, hahaha - yes, that source is fine, wish there was more like it. My issue with the Bloody Disgusting source is that it was prior to its release and doesn't really say much useful about it, simply quoting the author and saying the book would come out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Comparative Politics

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

This seems to be a very highly cited academic book. In any case I was not able to find anything on the book itself or any of its editions; my effort was confounded by the amount of citations that say nothing about it, but I did try, and came up empty PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:TBK. 200+ GScholar citations (190+4+4+3). Eight editions. The book is required reading at numerous universities, such as [12] [13] that come up on a search for "Introduction to ComparativePolitics"+kesselman+reading+site:.edu. There is coverage of the book, for example in this. I do not think we can delete a book on the basis that there are "too many" citations and the nominator says he does not have time to look at all of them, especially when simultaneously confronted with multiple nominations of this kind. James500 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I spent about an hour looking for sources and came up empty at the time. TBK is vague, again, there are no clear "passing" criteria as there is with NBOOK, it's basically just "use common sense". But that one source you found looks good and other sources have been found so I have no issues with that now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least three book reviews for different editions, which passes WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey and His Friends

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

I was unable to find any sources on this short story collection. The only non-primary source I found that mentions it is a passing mention in a booklist review of another work by Drake and non-sigcov in this bibliography. Redirect to author David Drake? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reviews of this book/collection of stories in Gnewspapers from the period, nor do I find any elsewhere... I don't think a redirect would help, it doesn't seem to be a well-known work by this author. I don't see notability and the lack of sources doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment better redirect would be David Drake bibliography, where it's mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems reasonable, but I wouldn't oppose redirecting to David Drake bibliography, per above. The only sources I can find on him are of his bibliography. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Drake bibliography. James500 (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Bridge

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

Only one source listed is an actual review/has outside commentary and what seems to be independence. I was unable to find anything else. A lot of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which further confuses matters. Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are press-release tier material which per NBOOK do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lenni Brenner#Bibliography. As per Liz, the consensus on where to point this redirect wasn't the strongest, so if any editor wishes to discuss and/or repoint the redirect elsewhere, please feel free to do so. (There was, however, a clear consensus not to retain the article.) Daniel (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Liberation and Palestine Solidarity

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

No sigcov anywhere, no reviews, I found it cited a few places but no commentary. Redirect to author Lenni Brenner? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Palestine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black-Palestinian solidarity. I haven't found sigcov of this volume either. I don't think a redirect is appropriate in this case, since this is a reasonable search term for the broad topic, which is notable. Our article on it is at Black-Palestinian solidarity, and this title should redirect there instead of to Lenni Brenner. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally made this as a delete vote, but I'm changing it to redirect since I don't see any good reason to delete the history. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Asilvering: Found nothing other than the mentioned cites on ProQuest. Nil elsewhere online as well. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Should not redirect and instead Delete.~~ Cant find useful reviews either. ~~The redirect target is to a broader topic and this is a book.~~ Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman The content of what used to be the redirect don't matter, it's the name, and there really isn't any pressing need to delete the page history PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OHH. for some reason read it as "merge" i guess and didnt realize. Whoops.

Redirect! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman, @Red-tailed hawk below has given a different redirect target than I did, so you should probably specify which you prefer. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my reasoning for pointing it at the author is WP:DIFFCAPS, since the redirect would be title case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no Wp:RS, not a likely search term. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lenni Brenner#Bibliography, where the work is mentioned on its author's biographical entry. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirect target articles suggested and an argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I oppose deletion, and of the redirect targets I am marginally in favor of Lenni Brenner#Bibliography, but the more general topic would be fine too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, PARAKANYAA. Although I guess you stated your preference in your nomination statement.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, my rationale was given before an alternative was proposed, and my response was ambiguous as to whether I would prefer that or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Contents

Literature

Revisionist Press

Penguin Lawrence Edition

Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

La sangre sobre la tierra

Ryuichi Sakamoto. Conversazioni

Islamic Commercial Law

Bonk on the Head

The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items

Trowel (journal)

Checkerspot (magazine)

Behind the Screams

Introduction to Comparative Politics

Lacey and His Friends

The Wisdom Bridge

Black Liberation and Palestine Solidarity

The East Is Blue

Literature proposed deletions