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

Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask

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

I am not aware of a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht. There is a nask simply called Hadokht as well as two fragments called Nerangestan and Herbedestan. However, the latter two aren't nasks but once formed parts of the Husparam nask. In addition, they are/were not Zand but Zand-Avesta texts meaning, they contained both the Avestan original jointly with the Pahlavi commentary.

Since the text only provides a single vague reference, which doesn't contain anything about a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht; it is not possible to verify what the intent of the article is.

To clarify, I do think that topics like the Hadokht nask, the Husparam nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text do deserve a dedicated Wikipedia article. I just don't think that the current one is one, can be changed into one, or even has any identifiable topic to begin with. If these points are true, the article should probably be deleted.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I Googled the phrase "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht nask" and apart from pages which derive from this article, I found this phrase only in one other source: "Avestan Architecture: A Descriptive Etymological Lexicon". Therein, the full sentence is "In addition to that, Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask and some other scattered documents are considered as Avestan sources." I also saw that this reference was originally used as a source in this Wikiepdia article to demonstrate the existence of such a work. This source was deleted since then for unclear reasons.

Now, several things seem clear from that. First, the article seems to be based on the misunderstanding that the above sentence is refering to a single work called "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask"; even though it clear from the context (as well as from reality) that three different texts are referenced here. Next, this misunderstanding was compounded by an unclear understanding of the other source being cited in the article (ie. Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis - Zand), which deals, among other things, with the Pahlavi commentary that was/is contained in the Hadokht nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text. Lastly, the first source, and the origin of this confusion, got removed from the article at some point in time, which made it unclear where this mistake originated.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America

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

Deletion discussion: I believe this article should be deleted, because it lacks notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it meets both GNG and the relevant SNG. We have significant coverage across a decent span of time and at least three reviews from major publications. Also note that this AfD appears to be malformed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews by reliable sources. (The article was in a much different state when nominated, thanks to Horse Eye's Back for making major improvements to it.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2025 (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 keep‎. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let Books Be Books

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A- stop removing the AfD tag, twice now. B- which of the six RS in the article that talk about this does the nominator feel isn't talking about this subject? Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is silly, the first TWO sources are directly about this subject, in some of the most RS we have for use in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the nominator's username and limited history, I'm having trouble assuming good faith. pburka (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be honestly fairly notable, properly and well-sourced. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone and their brother. Well sourced short article. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (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.

A Closed Book (novel)

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

A short book with the only reference on the page being a one-paragraph review of a film based on it. I'm not seeing much else to suggest this meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:41, 15 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. Romney, Jonathan (1999-09-29). "Do you see the point? A Closed Book by Gilbert Adair". The Guardian. ProQuest 245430652. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15.
  The review notes: "As for the Christie-like twist, there are in fact two: one a self-consciously grating "shock" revelation, the other a purely textual bit of trickery. Anyone averse to heightened self-consciousness will probably grind their teeth to discover that Paul's work is also to be called A Closed Book. Although Adair's one sometimes comes across as an all too knowing example of the all-is-not-what-it-seems thriller, its sense of paradox always gives it the edge."
2. Hutchings, Vicky (1999-10-25). "A Closed Book". New Statesman. Vol. 128, no. 4459. p. 57. ProQuest 224359534. EBSCOhost 2436580. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "As an exercise in the evocation of claustrophobia and terror, it is excellent; but one is left to imagine how Hitchcock would turn Sir Paul's growing fear - that he has been figuratively blinded through hiring the mysterious Ryder to be his eyes - into a genuine chiller. As in all Adair's novels, you feel he thinks more of design and arrangement, of sending signs to members of an insider audience (and often the same signs), than he does of entertaining the reader."
3. Sanderson, Mark (1999-09-20). "Horrors of the unseen". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329387993. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The novel is constructed almost entirely out of dialogue. Consequently, Sir Paul and the reader are faced with the same problem: who to trust. They are both at the mercy of a stranger. The writer has to rely on what Ryder tells him. Similarly, the reader "cannot peek over the tops of the words on the page, as he might endeavour to peek over the bobbing heads of a crowd of sightseers goggling at a passing parade, in order to get a better view of the world beyond them, for there is, of course, no world beyond." In such a nightmare scenario what remains unsaid is just as important as what is unseen. The ingenious, macabre result may leave a bad taste in the mouth but A Closed Book is a page-turner par excellence. And it makes you laugh as well as think. "
4. Seaton, Matt (1999-10-24). "Open verdict on a closed book". Sunday Herald. ProQuest 331276852.
  The review notes: "A Closed Book is essentially a jeu d'esprit, a good workout for Adair's wit muscle. It is not deep: it eschews the exploration of any moral dimension of the author's blindness; rather, it mocks Sir Paul's ponderings about the existential implications of sightlessness. What it is a very knowing novel about two men whose mutual destruction is assured precisely by the ways in which they are unknowing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Closed Book to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough above to meet NBOOK. More reviews in The Spectator (here) and Times Literary Supplement (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, snow/speedy/suggest a swift withdrawal. Found yet another review in The Independent on the first page of google hits. Also found [https://www.complete-review.com/reviews/adairg/closedb.htm an index of even more book reviews, including in Germany. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK per sources given above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

AfDs for this article:

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

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd

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

Gimmick mainly sourced to glorified press releases like this one. No lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram. While the sourcing of this topic could use improvement, I would like to argue that holding a Guinness Book of World Records title does, in fact, meet Wikipedia's lasting notability requirement. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my previous message, I have not found any rule for Wikipedia in reference to the sources I used being ineligible. Additionally, if you are implying that it's notability would be taken when the record is surpassed, I would like to inform you that the book will still have held the record for every year that it has earned the title. (e.g. World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd held the title for thickest unpublished book between 2023 and 20XX.) Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "glorified press releases": If your argument is that these sources fall under the Breaking News violation, I must point out that every news source that has been sourced in the article was written well after the book won the award, which occurred on July 6, 2023. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing to do with "breaking news", just that they aren't independent, reliable sources, but WP:NEWSORGINDIA ones. As for being a Guinness record, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources has an entry for Guinness, "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage." Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing links to your claims. Overall, I think the argument that is being gathered is that the topic World-2023 appears to be surrounded by paid or sensationalist sources. Like I said in my second message, many of these articles were written long after the book's creation, and they all appear to provide consistent claims pertaining to the topic. None of these articles push any form of advertisement, whether it be for a product or an event. Regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA—I must stress that it states that caution should be exercised when using sources such as these, rather than prohibiting it. And for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources, again, this says to be cautious rather than forbidding editors from using this method to prove an article's eligibility. The argument that the Guinness Book of World Records may include paid coverage does not apply here because again, nothing is being promoted. I understand that this may not be your argument, but furthermore, I must stress that both of these sources talk about caution rather than prohibition, and I do not think that being a grey area should be the determining factor when deciding to delete the article. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

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

Article relies entirely on the publication itself to source the information. No hits in google scholar, and nothing viewable in google books with WP:SIGCOV although there were hits without viewable pages and a few non-notable hits. With zero secondary sources on this book, it fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3,295 hits in Newspapers.com. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Hits in a search is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Those could all be passing mentions, or even advertisements for the book paid for by the publisher. I also don't have access to newspapers.com. If you find anything containing WP:SIGCOV in those sources by all means share it here or better yet add them to the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of those books where there's almost certainly SIGCOV somewhere but it's cited so often it's a nightmare to find. Nevertheless, after a search: there is an entry with sigcov in multiple books on "The Best Reference Books" [1] [2] (with different content). Also this newspaper review [3]. Willing to bet there is far far more, but there are as mentioned above 3000+ (!) mentions of it. Searching will likely be a pain, because this book is cited constantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thanks for these. We can only count The Best Reference Books as one source as they are the same publication even if the content is different. I'll take your word on the newspapers.com source. Please add these if you are able as the article currently only cites the book itself. We just need one more good review from a different publication (to satisfy the rule of three) and I think WP:NBOOK/WP:SIGCOV would be met and I'll happily withdraw at that point. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clipped the source noted above by PARAKANYAA. Here are some others [4][5][6][7] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the standard reference work on the game, and I'm sure there must be plenty of references to it to be found in bridge books and magazines. I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile putting in some cn tags might be a better approach than over-hasty deletion. JH (talk page) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhall1 This is a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is a discredited argument at AFD. We require the production of specific evidence. If there are sources, produce them.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I would, I've been searching, and have found a few sources which I will be adding to the article. My first thought was to look in the New York Times, as one of the few newspapers that has a freely available, online archive. I found four references, but then I realised that three of them were from the long period when Alan Truscott wrote their bridge columns and, as an editor of the OEoB, I suppose his comments on it aren't allowable. I do have a few other sources to include, though. JH (talk page) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (first edition, 1964) is referenced in the bibliography by Bourke and Sugden on page 145 as follows:

A massive work that is an essential reference for any Bridge player. The work derives some of its structure from both the The Whist Reference Book by William Mill Butler, and Ely Culbertson's, The Encyclopedia of Bridge. A wonderful work from any angle. The updates have been relatively timely. The decision to have a separate section on biographies and tournaments, taken by Tom Smith, was a good one. The sixth edition has a comprehensive bibliography prepared by Tim Bourke.
— per Bourke, Tim; Sugden, John (2010). Bridge Books in English from 1886-2010: an annotated bibliography. Cheltenham, England: Bridge Book Buffs. ISBN 978-0-9566576-0-2.

 Newwhist (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG per sources I listed above plus ones mentioned by others. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcanal Endoscopic Mastoid Approach - A new access for the mastoid cholesteatoma.

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

This article about a book was written by the book's author, a clear conflict of interest. There are four references – two are the book itself, another is simply its ISBN, and the final (which I will delete) is a Wikipedia article. There are no independent references; the book was published about three months ago and it does not appear notable; I could not find it on an Internet my search other than on the Internet Archive. Furthermore, it is not a work of fiction and therefore does not have a "plot", which is the main section of the article. It may not meet criteria for speedy deletion, but should be deleted because of lack of notability in this category and the author's/creator's conflict of interest. (I cannot send a message directly to the creator of the article because there is no User Talk Page for that user.) Ira Leviton (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Medicine. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the article creator of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage, so a clear failure of WP:NBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "This article is about a newly published book on transcanal endoscopic mastoid surgery. " pretty much tells you this is PROMO. Zero sources I find, there are only a total of 4 Gsearch hits, the first one is this person's Gscholar profile. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I can't find any reviews of this book, no mention of it by anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even published by any academic publisher, and per this youtube video, self-published. No surprise it's not held in any libraries according to WorldCat, and no surprise there is no academic coverage of it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Honestly, this might be the first I've seen to fail even WP:BKTS. It doesn't appear to be catalogued in the National Library of India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking around at my content. This article is about a research-based book that I wrote last year.

Please note that, despite being self-published, the book is edited and subject to open peer review. The book disclosed the reviewer's name along with the editor. Anyone can freely download the book from the source that I provide here. You can read this book if you work in medicine.

I know that self-promotion is bad. Nevertheless, promoting your worthy work for the benefit of people is a wonderful thing. I wrote this article about my book on Wikipedia so that interested ear surgeons will readily notice it.

If you find my explanation noteworthy, I request that you think before considering it for deletion. Shawkat26 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also kindly note that this book is catalogued in the Department of Archives and Libraries under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh. If you want to check it, follow the link below and search the book by ISBN.

http://isbn.teletalk.com.bd/ Shawkat26 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawkat26: Thanks for correcting me. I'm sorry for confusing which country the book originated in. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK per above. No secondary sources covering the book. Madeleine (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT - in 2025, everybody knows that we have never published original research, and that we are not a free place to publish your stuff. To argue otherwise is untenable. The creator might not know is that folks that use us with a conflict of interest are also creating a tax problem for us: as a charity, no part of our revenue can be used to profit anyone. If this were clearly notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources, an argument could be made that this is harmless, but I don't see any evidence therefore. It very much seems to be intentional spamming. We need to deter people from using us like this. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Research papers and research-based medical books are not same. The book is a compilation of many research works that must have authentic resources. My article is on a research-based book, not about a personal research paper. This book was edited and openly peer-reviewed by world renowned eminent ear surgeons. Reviewer's remarks were mentioned within the book. It is a published book, it has an ISBN, and it is cataloged in the Government's Department of Archive and Library.

It is considered a charity when an author freely offers his hard-labored book to others. I don't understand how a charity harms another charitable work.

After reading all the remarks, I understood my learned editors hardly gave a glance at the book. Although the book is free to download from the Internet Archive. I got their taste. If someone think I had bad intentions, it hurt me. Finally, I will request the admin to delete my article as soon as possible. This is my final decision and kindly ignore my previous request. Thank you all. Shawkat26 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy G7~~ Per author's request in preceding post, this should now be a :Db-author. Meters (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Per the boilerplate such an author's request during an AFD is just taken as agreement with the nomination rationale. Meters (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lough Gowna Valley

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

Non-notable book by a non-notable author whose name is a redlink in the article. Its entry at goodreads.com contains no review and just a single reader's two-star rating (out of five). In the only slightly significant review I found at The Irish Times where it was briefly sketched among other books, the reviewer described it as "a highly opinionated work, laced with discursive and distracting digressions" which demand "forbearance" from the reader. Otherwise seems to have sunk without trace. Judging by study of the article creator's brief edit history, there are hints that the article may have been created by the book's author. Spideog (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. In my own WP:BEFORE I could find almost nothing. Even a generous Google search returns barely 20 results. Effectively just this article, its mirrors, a (sparse) "goodreads" entry and Amazon listings. The only "news" coverage found is this local piece in the local Longford Leader. Which is about as far from significant coverage as it is possible to get. It does not help (as noted by the nominator) that this article was almost certainly created as a part of a series of COI/NOTPROMO edits by a contributor who had a connection to this book or its author. Guliolopez (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm didn't find much either. It looks like the book had some mild attention paid to it, emphasis on the mild. I did find where it was a source in two academic press books. Not something that would give notability, but just an interesting side note. His local townspeople seem to have certainly loved him since I did find a few more general news articles about him, but that never translated into more widespread media attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I was able to find only one review about the subject (which the AfD nominator quoted in the nomination):
1. Roche, Richard (2003-03-08). "Tales of nuns and roses ; Richard Roche on castles and mansions". The Irish Times. p. 60. ProQuest 309569257. Factiva irti000020030308dz380003q.
  The review notes: "Local history with attitude - that, perhaps, is the most appropriate description that can be applied to The Lough Gowna Valley: a big (560 pages) history of the lake district cradled between counties Cavan and Longford. It is, by any standards, an extraordinary, comprehensive and provocative work which took years to compile and which undoubtedly contains every scrap of information available about the valley. But it is also a highly opinionated work, laced with discursive and distracting digressions into fields other than local history. While there may be nothing in the rubric of the writing of such history that forbids opinions, these are normally confined to the subject in hand. In Columb's case, his opinions range far and wide: 13 pages about "The Troubles", three more about imperialism and various other snipe-shots at local politicians, national figures and even international events. There is a compentent local history buried in this tome, but one needs forbearance to mine the rich vein that lies within."
Cunard (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- In this case merge/redirect may would be a good idea. (@Spideog: (merging done, with TompaDompa's refs) --Altenmann >talk 18:03, 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]

Comment I forget what we decided to do with book series where no one individual volume is notable, but there is enough RS'ing for the series as a whole. I think this might be a keep based on the above, but I agree a merge (or redirect) to the notable author is the minimum we should expect here. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it looks like there are several "Isaac Asimov's Robots XXX" series, in addiyion to Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time, see Isaac Asimov's Robots and Aliens and Isaac Asimov's Robot City. I will take a look closer. --Altenmann >talk 17:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to William F. Wu seems best, as there are limited secondary sources as already described by TompaDompa. This journal article has a very brief characterization which can provide one additional sentence of useful commentary. Daranios (talk) 19:36, 13 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]

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 16 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: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 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]
Keep per the above sourcing, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darth Stabro's findings. Toughpigs (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BEFORE and WP:HEY. This fictional town is as well-documented as Springfield (The Simpsons). We all make mistakes. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. I used this article today to find a quote for a scholarly article, "...and all the children are above average." These words aptly sum up contradictions in the US education system. Gxgund (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a mystical place/region that carries a lot of literary value. I planned a brief vacation to visit that place as part of the Humble Origins in Minnesota and a lot of other people do as well. Lake Wobegon Effect (claim that where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.) is a topic of discussion in many psychology courses around the US/globe. sgowtham (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (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 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]

Delete, looked, found nothing. Cited a few times but nothing discussing it. Though it is of note that Google is bad at finding sources for these kinds of books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Declined PROD; not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no claim of notability and this case identifies Exposition Press as a vanity publisher. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur_Moeller_van_den_Bruck#Further_reading: that (short) book is quoted in a lot (I do mean a LOT) of books on the origin of Nazi ideology. (Hitler: Profile of a Dictator - oage 119; The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda - page 237 etc) so not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also not opposed to Keep if sources can be found to build an article—reviews, etc. But the article has persisted in its current form for a long time. Prezbo (talk) 17:05, 15 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]

Cunard's sources and expansion would make a merge WP:UNDUE, although I concur with PARAKANYAA that an article on the Mapp series would be ideal. In the absence of that, however, keep. Jfire (talk) 16:59, 12 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]

Keep, per sources by Cunard. I now think that this is enough to be undue weight merged to its target and to support notability. However I don't think it would be undue weight on a "Mapps" article still, so if an article on that got made I would perhaps support merging it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 11 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]
- Thank you and PARAKANYAA for reviewing the expanded article and the sources! I've moved the striking of a "merge" comment to the correct place. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ups, apologies for striking the wrong merge !vote. Daranios (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow the pinged editors and others to consider Cunard's improvements and provide input as to whether the 'new' version is merge or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; potentially enormous list of little encyclopedic value, better handled with a WP:CAT. Carguychris (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list can be made manageable, for example, by limiting entries to works that are notable enough for their own article. As a topic, it seems relevant that Ukrainian literature has historically been isolated and received limited English translation until it received more international attention following the Crimean invasion in 2014 and has been increasingly translated into English.

The best Ukrainian literary classics available in English translations, provides SIGCOV on the history of English translation of Ukrainian literature

UKRAINIAN LITERATURE IN ENGLISH is a comprehensive bibliography of Ukrainian literature in English published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press

Just glancing through Google, there are many articles giving recommendations for the best Ukrainian works that have been translated into English (e.g.6 great Ukrainian fiction books available in English, Kyiv Post, Love Ukraine as You Would the Sun: 10 Ukrainian Books Worth Reading in English, Literary Hub)

Photos of Japan (talk) 21:40, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:25, 12 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: including a potential merger target, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 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]
Keep a notable topic as demonstrated. Not a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 11 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 [13], and here, but this is more of a mention [14]. 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]

Keep. Cunard's sourcing shown above is alright. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions