Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

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

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 Delete. Lara ❤Love 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word Ways: Going Places with Literacy

No evidence of notability. -Icewedge (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability via google search/news search, appears to fail all WP:NB notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability that I can see. Terraxos (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (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 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City

Non-notable book, which I cannot find anything reliable on google. Page orphaned and has no context. Authour fails WP:BIO Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Not every book needs a WP entry. WP is not Books in Print. eaolson (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews of the book from academic journals show up on the very first page of google results for "Crisis in the Built Environment"; it thus passes the primary notability criterion. In general I think authors of notable books are presumed to be notable and so Jamel Akbar and this article could stand alone, but if this is his only notable work, I wouldn't object to merging the book article into his bio article.
- Watts, Donald (August 1992), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24 (3): 509–510, retrieved 2008-04-09
- Çelik, Zeynep (October–December 1991), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111 (4): 803–804, retrieved 2008-04-09 --- Cheers, cab (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete 19 GS references for a book, and only one or two reviews in specialised journals, is routine, not notable, for an academic book. 130 Libraries in worldcat; respectable, a perfectly good book to count towards someone's notability but not individually significant. DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have it exactly backwards. Reviews of a book in journals (specialized or otherwise) can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book. It is less clear how those reviews can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book's author. So the book may not "count towards" Akbar's notability, but the reviews cited by cab do demonstrate the book's notability. 152.3.246.246 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cab. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cab's got it right. OptimistBen (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. Atyndall93 | talk 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in independent reliable sources demonstrates notability. --Beloved Freak 16:03, 20 April 2008 (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 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 no consensus. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have You Lived Before This Life

Article covers a book that claims to have been out of print since 1989, although I did find a scientology bookstore that offered copies (but no publication information...I assume it is back in print). No secondary sources could be found outside of "Operation Clambake" which had the 4. Have You Lived Before This Life, and it was mentioned in a few blogs, but those only referanced it to say that "yes, scientology believes in reincarnation" which is already covered by many other wikipedia pages. It isn't even the primary source of the scientology doctrine of reincarnation, only a collection of stories about scientologists talking about past lives. not notable outsde the church or within the church (they stoped publishing it, and wern't in a hurry to bring it back). Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched through several archival sources and databases in an attempt to find WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly analyze and discuss this book. There are a few mentions of it in other books, but the majority of those are either other books affiliated with the Church of Scientology itself, or just passing mentions in no more than a sentence or so, and not a detailed analysis or in-depth discussion. Most simply give it a one-line mention. A search in book reviews in InfoTrac did yield one review, West Coast Review of Books Jan. 1979 p44, but I don't have access to that source. However, in a search of three different news archive sources, one yielded zero results, and the others resulted in three hits - all of which appeared to be a form of Scientology advertising as part of a public relations campaign - no independent discussion/analysis. So really I was only able to find the presence of the one book review, and there is the brief description in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology. Not really enough to assert notability, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the references in the article, and while there could be more, there seems to be enough for a short article. The "brief description" in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology is chapter four of her book. There are couple of bits in Bare-Faced Messiah that I'm surprised no one dug up. (Also in A Piece of Blue Sky, but that was the source that was expanded on for BFM so it's a bit redundant.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AndroidCat's efforts demonstrate adequate existence of reliable sources, which shouldn't be surprising, given the notability/notoriety of the book's author. --MPerel 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the article as I see it is the Notablility of the book itself. I appriciate Androidcat cleaning up the referances, but would you be able to adress if this book is notable or not?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The book meets the notability standard based on criteria 1 and also criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. It meets criteria 1 as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. For example, as AndroidCat mentions, an entire chapter in The Scandal of Scientology is devoted to it. It is also discussed in several journals (typically negatively) including in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion [1] (I’ve checked the full pdf text of the article), and in the Christian Research Institute Journal [2]. Additionally, it also meets criteria 5, as the work of an historically significant author, L. Ron Hubbard. --MPerel 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it fits either of those criteria. for criteria 1 it needs to be the "subject" of multiple... the journal article you mentioned (the second one that we can read) only used the book as supporting evidance, and only in 1 paragraph of the article. the first one I can't access, but it dosn't mention reincarnation or the book title anywhere in the abstract that I saw. My interpretation of this is the book dosn't qualify as the "subject" of the article, but rather minor supporting evidance. You do bring up 2 good sources...but again does 2 or 3=Multiple for notablility criteria (especialy considering the amout of reliable critical material avalible on scientology, if only 3 mention the book...). Now I have heard the argument for criteria 5 before, and I stand by my old stance. L Ron Hubbard is notable within the church, however his influence outside that circle is negligable at this time. His theories havn't been revolutionary to the population at large, and quite frankly don't really affect socitey outside of direct contact with scientologists. Unlike Marx, Darwin, Saint Augustine, Thomas Jefferson, his thoughts havn't spawned new theoretical works or systems of society outside of those he had direct influence over (the church of scientology). Therefore although he is definatly famous, he is hardly a household name (my parents didn't know who he was outside of a "bad science fiction writer" direct quote) and dosn't have the influence outside the church that would be neccisary to make everything he wrote important enought to grant inclusion to wikipedia regardless of its own notablility.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that the subheading qualifies the number 5 criterea with the following example "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study"Coffeepusher (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (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 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics Today

I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources which significantly discuss and analyze this work. The book itself is not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but rather compiled from his writings, by the Church of Scientology. In a search for the title "Dianetics Today" in three different news archives, 2 of the archives came up with zero hits - and in the third the only results were brief mentions, the majority of which appear to be advertisements placed in those publications by the publisher, Bridge Publications (Scientology publishing corporation). Zero results for the book in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. In a search in scholarly sources, found a mention in Christian Research Journal in an article by John Weldon - but this is only as a citation and the book is not discussed at all. In summation: no discussion of this book beyond a two-word mention of the title in any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Any information could be merged with the article Dianetics - though I don't think there is much useful sourced info as the Wikipedia article itself at present only contains three references affiliated with the publisher of the work itself. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the same conclusion as Cirt. the article discribes in detail a book that is no longer used by scientology or sold anywhere. the only information that gives a outside worldview of this book appears to be WP:OR in the Disaperance section. if a secondary source could be found I agree with Cirt that the information could easily be murged with the Dianetics page...but so far my search didn't turn up anything we can use.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources (and anything Scientological isn't a reliable source for anything, much less for this book) are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and merge any relevent info into L. Ron Hubbard.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable book in the Scientology canon, a compilation/abridgment of earlier writings published once in the mid 1970s and not reprinted since. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2008 (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 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppy Place

Fails notability for books and may also possibly be spam. Cunard (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it lists the series from the same non-notable authors as The Puppy Place:

Delete They sound like good books, but ultimately they fail WP:BOOK — no reliable sources, author is an apparent red link, and insufficient context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria at WP:NB. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context, no assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (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 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 Redirected to List of Forgotten Realms novels. Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. No bias against re-creation should the series be completed, and notability be established with reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy

An article about a trilogy of books, of which there are only two. This article has no content, context, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I can see no notability of the unfinished trilogy. Only two books have been published yet. The published books have an amazon sales rank between 8,000 and 22,000 (as of today). While it may be discussed that the books themselves are sufficiently notable, I don't think an unfinished trilogy is. --Abrech (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per BOZ. Once the entire trilogy is released, depending on sales status and reviews, we might very well see these books (and a distinct article on them) again. But for the moment, they're best merged.Shemeska (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect without prejudice towards receation as per Shemeska. McJeff (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as title itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is no salvageable material for a merge because of the redlinks. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. As an article by itself, it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Merged with the list, it should be fine. Once the trilogy is fully released, I wouldn't be against the re-creation of it, as long as there's some content to it. --JamieS93 14:24, 22 April 2008 (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 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 Delete due to the lack of reliable sources which would show it meets any of the criteria of the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon Is Not the Son

Non-notable book. No reviews cited. The only reference used for the article is a college catalogue. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not defined or presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (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.

WP:PROD Nominations

Biting the Sun 12 August
Under the Ribs of Death 12 August
Devils and Angels 16 August --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry

ANTHM

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

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Poetry, Music, Ethiopia, Germany, Russia, United States of America, New York, and Texas. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keep is that she meets WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG. Any thoughts on that? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Asur

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

Language problems may be why I can’t identify sources, but I’ve never before seen an article with entries in multiple language Wikipedias none of which are sourced, and I also note a number of self-published books. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should definitely not have been created directly in mainspace in this condition; it's completely unsourced, and I can't find any third-party sources on Google either. Needs to be either deleted or moved to draft where the creator can work on it. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there is at least one institute for the preservation or recovery of the Asturian language. It may be worth looking there for support. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
: Academy of the Asturian Language, Asur is a member. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have found and added some sources, dating from 1986 to 2025 - easy to find by searching Google Scholar or Google Books. I do not read Spanish (or Asturian), so would need to copy and paste more into Google Translate in order to add more info and refs to the article - but there is certainly scholarly writing about his writing, so he meets WP:AUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]