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

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series

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

Again, this is just a very poorly refenced WP:ALLPLOT, this time there is even no list of apperances to match it. Fails WP:NLIST. WP:ATD-R, if we want to be generous, would be the main Aubrey–Maturin series, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with cleanup template and move to a new title like List of characters in Aubrey-Maturin and use WP:RS, this isn't a dynamic list; also, wasn't the source material famously frozen in time? Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a fan article consisting almost wholly of unsourced plot elements, contrary to WP:ALLPLOT. Even if much can be sourced to reliable primary sources (the novels themselves), that would still not avoid the requirements of WP:ALLPLOT. There is little critical analyis, but what there is amounts to WP:OR, with no attempt to provide secondary reliable sources to support any character analysis. Very little here is salvageable, and no purpose would be served by keeping it and merely adding a tag calling for reliable sources to be added. I note that several of the characters already have their own articles, but there's no sourced material here worth merging. If anyone knows of independent sources that critically discuss any of the other major characters, they could consider creating new character-specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Hercule Poirot stories

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

De facto a a list of minor fictional characters, but just a plot summary and comments on who played them in some movies and such. Mostly unreferenced. Not seeing how this meets WP:NLIST and such. Possible WP:ATD-R is Hercule Poirot, I assume at least one of these characters is mentioned there, and there are likely redirects to this list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move and give this major cleanup. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Their argument seems pointless - move to where? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superintendent Battle

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

Minor character from Christie's novels. The article is just a plot summary and a list of appearances; my BEFORE shows mentions in passing, but no WP:SIGCOV. I am not sure what the best WP:ATD-R is here (Agatha_Christie's_fictional_universe#Superintendent_Battle?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are the good guys (Bröckers/Schreyer)

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

Hi, this is a book written by two 9/11 (and other) conspiracy theorists and completely irrelevant. The article uses almost no references and the author of the article is under investigation in de.wikipedia.org for excessive usage of KI and lots of fake references. Jo1971 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 6 June 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 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like an overly wordy article that mostly quotes the book or the sources. I'm not sure why it has Russian and other foreign sources for a German book. I spot checked the ones in the German wiki they look about the same as the ones here. I can't find any book reviews; this feels PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, you seem to have missed that there are links to book reviews in the article. See the refs in my !vote below for three examples. Jahaza (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article including[1][2][3] clearly demonstrate the books notability per WP:BOOK #1. We can easily stubify the the article if necessary. Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and since there's no English edition and the book is not well known, the article should be moved to "Wir sind die Guten." Jahaza (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article was created in the German Wikipedia before the technical possibility of using AI. It was recently translated from German, but nothing was changed. The sources are verifiable. It is true that for my more recent articles, unintentional errors have unfortunately arisen due to inexperienced and too optimistic/credulous/naive/trusting use of AI and those errors need to be corrected. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of the old articles. Furthermore, the criterion of political bias cannot apply, as very harsh criticism from almost all reviews available online has also been incorporated with references.Gabel1960 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadhrat Ahmad

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

Fails Wp:Nbook and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth

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

Fails Wp:Nbook and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of e-book software

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

The concept of E-book software is likely a notable one, but unfortunately it redirects to this unreferenced and likely obsolete comparison table, that fails WP:V. Due to no references, this WP:OR table is of little use. I think we need to nuke it and hope someone will create a proper article on E-book software one day. (We also have a larger Comparison of Android e-reader software, with some refs - maybe it could work as WP:ATD-R). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Products, and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this piece of trade magazine ephemera. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a how-to website. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable or encyclopaedic. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God's Revelation to the Human Heart

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

Current sources appears to be passing mentions and bookstore descriptions. Both does not count towards WP:GNG, which does not appear to be fulfilled. A WP:BEFORE search also returned no results outside of passing mentions. Nothing in Newspapers.com about the book either.

The book exists, but there is almost no coverage of it by reliable sources outside of passing mentions. Proposing a redirect to the author. Pinging Myckaa, Moriwen for involvement with the failed PROD. Justi yaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, United States of America, and Alaska. Justi yaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seraphim Rose: No standalone notability for this book. The review by Roosh Valizadeh appears on an WP:SPS blog ([4]) and the article in Religion (which is by Lackenby, not Gallaher as stated here) is not a review but a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (Works by the English theologian and bishop Kallistos Ware (such as The Inner Kingdom) and the American monk Seraphim Rose (such as his God's Revelation to the Human Heart) are amongst those which periodically come up in conversations.) The book exists, though, so no reason not to redirect the title to the article about its notable author. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Debt Bubbles

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

WP:NFRINGE. Heterodox economic thinktanks are not reliable sources for the theories they promote, and result in utter nonsense contrary to policy when they are the only sources available. Statements made in wikivoice in this article do not meet the standards of evidence required for wikivoice, and, again, the lack of other sources would make it difficult to assess WP:PARITY. Even if useful sources are found, which I have not been able to, I would suggest it might be better to start afresh without relying on content presumably written based on said fringe sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Libertarianism, and Economics. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 4 are book reviews, as are this [5] and [6]. Would seem to be more than enough to show notability for books. We've had AfD articles with less reviews than this one has. Could probably use a re-write, but I think notability is there. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, sources used to show notability have to meet WP:RS. Fringe think tanks are not reliable sources for WP:NFRINGE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've reviewed the book and seem independent, biased or not, it's more the review itself than the content that matters. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Cobden Centre not a RS? Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion they were independent, considering their friends were very happy to proclaim that the Cobden Centre people were the ones that got the publishing deal. I can't really prove a negative in terms of them lacking a reputation for fact checking and reliability like WP:MISES, the other source you seemed to think is appropriate to bring up, but WP:FRINGE means I don't really have to.

Our guidelines are very clear that we are required to use sources outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. A thinktank for Austrian economics, which is WP:FRINGE because the entire school unapologetically departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, is not in any way a reliable source for the fringe stuff they promote.

I think I might have to list this on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard... Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought my nom was fairly clear about WP:FRINGE being the rules we need to operate under for fringe topics, but I guess apparently not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE is a guideline. Notability stuff is policy and always >> outranks FRINGE without exemption. Same as it does any other guideline, because it's a policy. Policy > guideline. I'm not sure there's any scenario where a guideline can outrank a policy? It's like law as subservient to constitution, I guess? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is also a guideline.... This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. WP:NFRINGE describes how Notability applies to fringe theories. Either way, all of our notability guidelines, no matter the subject, requires the use of reliable sources, without which one would not be able to meet WP:COPO, hence WP:WHYN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFRINGE applies to theories, The notability of a fringe theory... This article is about a book, NFRINGE could apply if someone tried to add the theories from the book into various articles. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying fringe sources, which are the only sources that have reviewed (just to be clear, I mean review in the WP:NBOOK nontrivial-work sense, not "accepted for publishing") the book, are reliable sources? I don't really think they are, but I feel like I shouldn't have to prove a negative with respect to a lack of reputation for fact checking and accuracy here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NFRINGE applies to literally any topic that is related to fringe theories. It may not be the only relevant guideline about such, but it is worthy of consideration. A book about a fringe theory ought to be judged based on the scrutiny with which the idea itself is discussed. To behave otherwise would be a means to create WP:COATracks. jps (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if we really do want to distinguish guidelines from policy, WP:NOTPROMO / WP:NOTADVOCACY certainly is policy. I don't think it's usually weighed more in AFDs even where t is brought up though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um... No, that's not correct. WP:NFRINGE is how we judge the notability of fringe theories. WP:GNG can, in some cases, make a case that an idea that is not a notable fringe-related point is notable in spite of other issues, but there is no "out ranking" of PAGs at Wikipedia and it is irresponsible to argue as much. jps (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these reviews are "independent" in the sense of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Listed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard § AfD about economics book reviewed by think tanks Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE. Heterodox economic thinktanks are not reliable sources for the theories they promote, and result in utter nonsense contrary to policy when they are the only sources available. Statements made in wikivoice in this article do not meet the standards of evidence required for wikivoice, and, again, the lack of other sources would make it difficult to assess WP:PARITY.

Forgive a possible ignorant question, but what's that got to with WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? The dumbest non-refutable stuff (due to other policies) can still be notable amd merit an article...?

I'm just scratching my head to understand what bit of deletion policy matches that argument. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources that mention a topic are somehow connected to the fringe theory, then it is possible that there isn't enough independent sourcing to make article writing possible. jps (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to passing GNG for books, it is published by Springer Nature, a reputable publisher who review books before publishing them. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's not what the website says. Independent peer review is not guaranteed in the sense that authors can, and sometimes are required, in fact, to propose their own reviewers for the book. jps (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how just being published by a company which is less disreputable than some is a reason to have an article here. The default state of a book, even a book from an academic press, is non-notability. An academic book needs reviews to get it over that bar, just like any other kind of book. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proposer is correct. Since the book has not been reviewed by sources which are independent of heterodox economic theories, it appears as though there are zero WP:FRIND-compliant sources mentioning the book. We would want someone to review the book that is outside of that bubble before creating a standalone article on a subject. jps (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In order to be article-worthy, this book would need reviews in peer-reviewed economics journals. (There could in principle be other ways to justify having an article for a book, but that's the only rationale which is even remotely plausible here.) Searching JSTOR and Google Scholar comes up with nothing. Consider reference 3 as the article stands now: it is a blog post on the Pacific Research Institute website, written by PRI's own staff members. There's no indication that passed any kind of rigorous editorial process, and PRI is a blatantly ideological outfit anyway. Similar concerns apply to the other candidate sources mentioned above. To echo the comment above, we need review from "outside of that bubble". The International Ouija Association printing a rave review about The Age of Ouija Bubbles wouldn't make that treatise notable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions