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

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

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

This subject doesn't appear to be notable. I scoured through everything for a BEFORE, including Japanese sources, Books sources, sources from the early 2000s, and Scholar sources. I found a genuinely fantastic source from SyFy, which can be viewed here: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/pokemon-electric-tale-of-pikachu-manga.

Beyond that, though, is very little. There's some trivia articles from Valnet, which generally don't count for notability, but that's about it, and none of them are really SIGCOV of the entire manga series. The current source in the article is half-decent, but it's very barebones coverage (It's generic but it sold well). I found another hit in a scholarly paper, but it was just verifying the same sales info that I found previously. There's an interview source in here, but that falls under WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't count for notability.

There's scattered bits here and there, but nothing here for a strong, concrete article that satisfies any notability guideline. An AtD for now is to List of Pokémon manga. While not the greatest article, it allows for a preservation of page history should stronger sourcing come about, or if that list ever gets a revamp. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The True Story of the Novel

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

There is no need for this stub as one already exists for the author. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Something went wrong with this nomination, because there is no notice on the article itself. That said,~~ Keep per WP:NBOOK. The book is clearly notable, with reviews in six journals. Hopefully someday someone will expand it (synopsis, and summaries of the reviews), but being a stub is not grounds for deletion. (Even if the book were not notable, a reasonable alternative to deletion would have been to redirect it to the author's page.) (the bot fixed the nomination errors, and I've notified the article creator) Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (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/2024 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough reviews, and as mentioned above, being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six high quality sourced reviews show that this book passes the notability criteria for GNG and NBOOK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG quite well.★Trekker (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon volumes

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

INDISCRIMINATE list of volumes from a variety of non-notable manga series, with their only similarity being that they're related to Pokémon. List of chapter information with no context as to why this split is notable nor necessary, and has no reason to exist separately from any other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Consent (Burawoy book)

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

Article does not cite any sources. I tried to help the article and breathe new life into it with a non-free image properly uploaded, but it does not appear to be notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was just referencing the article as you were adding the deletion notice, and accidentally edit-conflicted. I moved a review from the EL to the body, and found another one here. I'm sure I could find more if given the time. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reviews in Estudios Sociológicos (here), Berkeley Journal of Sociology (graduate-student run, however) (here), Social Forces (here), Journal of Social History (here), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (here), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (here) and Contemporary Sociology (here). I could go on, but this is enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources shown above, enough to pass GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality by Design

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

Completely unsourced article that furthermore does not even seem to reflect the book's actual content. The notability of this minor book (which is just one of multiple such books with an article here!) discussing The Bell Curve is also questionable. Lamptonian (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reviews are in the further reading, off of which this already passes NBOOK. I'm not even going to bother looking for more but I would bet there are - it is not "completely unsourced". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in Library Journal(here), Intelligence (journal) (here), Political Science Quarterly (here), Journal of the American Statistical Association (here), European Sociological Review (here), Contemporary Sociology (here), Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (here) and Personnel Psychology (journal) (here). I could keep going (my library's search alone shows at least 35 reviews), but I think it's clear this meets NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reviews. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save America (book)

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

No content that would be sufficient for a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy reviews in two independent and highly notable publications clearly meets the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Also, not everything related to Donald Trump is notable by default, including a book that is, in essence, campaign literature. TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seconded that this passes NBOOK. No, not everything President Trump does is notable, but a book which receives SIGCOV is, in my opinion. A quick Google News search reveals what is, in my opinion, SIGCOV from RSs ranging from the Washington Post to the New York Times to ABC. Lastly, I fail to see how the book being “campaign literature” — or not — pertains to this AfD.MWFwiki (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bibliography of Donald Trump. As a practical matter it is unlikely that there will ever be enough about this book for an article. Unlike "art of the deal" this one is a re-hash of already seen photos of events covered in the media, so there is no new content, and from what I understand, nothing that we do not already know. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs to be handled carefully. The main question here is less "is this notable" as much as it "is it individually notable from Donald Trump". My concern here is that the coverage for this seems to be pretty light and when it is discussed, it tends to be discussed in relation to his successful 2024 re-election campaign and his plans for if (as this was released prior to the elections) he was re-elected.

So I think that when people are mentioning this in the AfD as campaign literature they're probably concerned that sourcing coverage tends to shift from the book and its contents to coverage of the (then) impending elections as a whole - as was the case with CBS's coverage of the book. I'm going to see what I can find, but offhand I can see concerns that the existing coverage isn't exactly for the book itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially skeptical that there was enough out there but a search did bring up quite a bit - it's not a lot, mind you. Most tended to focus on the claims of Mark Zuckerberg committing election fraud and threats to arrest him if this was done again. But there's just enough to say that this passes NBOOK.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland (audio drama)

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any reviews of it online, checked Google and ProQuest, though I might've missed some due to the search term I used to avoid false positives. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures#2002. This is one of a nearly endless (but not endless enough to fans) supply of audio productions set in the Doctor Who universe. As with most of these productions, they gained little to no coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as reliable and able to establish how these are independently notable of the series. I'll also be honest, I'm not really certain that a redirect is needed but as they are WP:CHEAP, there's also no reason not to have it.

On a side note, I think that it would be a good idea to bring up a discussion on the Doctor Who WikiProject about doing mass redirects. The overall productions and book series are notable but the individual entries aren't. I think it would be a good idea to redirect the individual entries to the parent articles on the series. We could of course keep those individual entries that pass notability guidelines, but I'll be honest. Those are extremely few and far between, to the point where I'd wager that 99.9% are not individually notable. Given that there are hundreds upon hundreds of entries in these series, this could potentially mean hundreds of entries at AfD as well. I think a mass redirect (and cleaning the articles so those redirects aren't circular) would be a good suggestion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created a discussion here. I'm not on as frequently as I once was, but I'll try to keep checking in. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was heading towards a delete opinion, though reading a web translation of the company's own detailed and frank description of their business history, the impact of Amazon acquiring into their market, etc. made me wonder if some form of WP:ATD towards the wider view might exist? The decent coverage of this and other e-comm firms in Christopher Schroeder's 2017 MIT Technology Review article encourages that view, though I still see no suitable target. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

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

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharavela Deva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 December 2024 (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/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for article deletion. However, the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 5 criteria did it pass for English Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? Would Hindi Wikipedia be more appropriate?Some of the sources appear to be solely in Hindi and/or are interviews, quotes, promotional, or blatanly state that the publisher takes no responsibility: "The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." Alegh (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book is self published through Notion Press publisher. Book fails WP:NBOOK. Page does not have multiple reviews from reliable sources. I can not find if book has won a major literary award and if the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution in any area. Sources on the page are simply poor. RangersRus (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions