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

Winkie Country

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

There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage of this fictional country to pass WP:GNG. The 2nd source in the article is The Maps of Oz. I have doubts that a fictional map contains enough critical analysis to be considered significant coverage. The 5th source is The Dictionary of Imaginary Places which I have also doubts since during the AfD for Quadling Country it was said to be "just an overview of Oz history with no critical insight into any of it."

Then there is the book Oz and Beyond which discusses the location of Winkie Country on the map of Oz, not significant coverage IMO: [1]

The best source seems to be the book Monsters and the Monstrous: [2]. It contains this passage:

"The revision of the name of Winkie Country by Maguire to The Vinkus is an example of how small changes take on much greater significance in Maguire’s alternative, and much more adult, depiction of Oz. Winkie, the reader learns, is a slang term for the people from The Vinkus and reflects Oz’s colonial history and the prevailing attitudes of the elite and ruling class to the indigenous populations to the West and South of the Emerald City."

Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Winkie Country, unless additional sourcing is found. Mika1h (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyayubihime (film)

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

Unfortunately, after looking around for sources to the best of my ability, searching under both English and Japanese names, I can't find any good sources for this film. The other-language equivalents of this article appear about as barren of useful references as this is (although the Japanese article is about the anthology series of films that this is part of, rather than the film by itself). The only reference I do know of is this article about Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim which briefly mentions it, but obviously that doesn't pass SIGCOV. If anyone can find any good sources, I'd be happy to see this kept, but as the situation stands I'm not seeing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Television, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Scorpion Books

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

not notable defunct publisher; article lacking in sources, Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't exist, no sources available, probably wasn't notable even when it did exist. -- LWG ^talk 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find even any real coverage in: google/bing news, google books, google scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader. I also don't see a reasonable merge or redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huayi Publishing House

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

Reads like a press release and it may be better to WP:STARTOVER. Amigao (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lei, Ben 雷奔 (2001). "书业 "黑马" 细说生意经——华艺出版社的陋巷传奇" [Publishing Industry 'Dark Horse' Shares Business Secrets — The Alleyway Legend of Huayi Publishing House]. 文化月刊 [Cultural Monthly] (in Chinese).
  This is a citation from Google Scholar.
2. "华艺出版社：我们是怎样包装崔永元(1)" [Huayi Publishing: How We Packaged Cui Yongyuan (Part 1)]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2001-07-30. Archived from the original on 2007-02-03. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "华艺出版社因成功包装名人图书而在出版界享有盛誉。虽然，金丽红认为，华艺出版的大多数书并不是名人书；但事实上，华艺成功推出了不少名人书，如吴小莉的《足音》、敬一丹的《声音》、白岩松的《痛并快乐着》等，还有姜文、徐静蕾、高峰等人的书，而且，这些图书几乎是推出一本畅销一本。另外，著名作家如刘心武、王朔、王蒙、刘震云等人的重要著作，差不多也都是华艺率先推出的。" From Google Translate: "Huayi Publishing House enjoys a good reputation in the publishing industry for its successful packaging of celebrity books. Although Jin Lihong believes that most of the books published by Huayi are not celebrity books; in fact, Huayi has successfully launched many celebrity books, such as Wu Xiaoli's Footworks, Jing Yidan's Voice, Bai Yansong's Pain and Happiness, etc., as well as books by Jiang Wen, Xu Jinglei, Gao Feng and others, and these pictures The book is almost a best-selling book. In addition, the important works of famous writers such as Liu Xinwu, Wang Shuo, Wang Meng, Liu Zhenyun and others are almost all pioneered by Huayi."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huayi Publishing House (simplified Chinese: 华艺出版社; traditional Chinese: 華藝出版社) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XIX. Solar Sphinx (book)

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

Self published book. Not independent and lacking WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBOOK. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Merton Society of Great Britain and Ireland

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor. Uncited for 18 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Ireland, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Merton, which already contains a sentence on this organization and its journal. Absence of significant coverage in independent sources to support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or redirect to Thomas Merton#In popular culture. Where the subject org has a brief mention. As an WP:ATD. As noted, there is no indication that this (small? paid-membership? limited scope?) org meets WP:NGO or WP:ORGDEPTH (to the extent that a standalone title is warranted). Guliolopez (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Thomas Merton Society as suggested in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this article helpful because it is a long series of novels about a set of characters with connected stories. It is helpful to a person who reads the series, and it provides a series view of these characters. At the time most text was written, the sources used were the novels themselves. If the lack of other sources is the true objection, perhaps there should be a request for more references both to the novels and any reviews or other sources. Per the revision history, I wrote more text than any other editor, which I had not realized. I listened to audio books so was not providing page numbers, but book and chapter at best. I see this as an extension or companion article to the Aubrey–Maturin series article. The period of history in which the novels are set was long and complex and the story twining through 21 novels is also long and complex. Perhaps another edit to this article would be links from the article on each novel to this article under debate, to specific characters. The descriptions here are series descriptions, not appropriate for any one novel’s article. I can slightly understand someone confusing it with fan text — for this series, there are links to the fan-type articles and tables. This article is descriptions of characters as they developed through the many years of the setting. I do hope the article is not deleted. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Maybe needs a little more info. However, Category:Lists of literary characters and Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium indicate there are several ways to do any of them. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 16 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]
Comment I note that Harper Collins issued The Complete Superintendent Battle in 2003 [3], and WorldCat has Battle, Superintendent (Fictitious character) as a subject [4], which probably indicates its frequency as a search term. There are some results in Google Scholar - I haven't been able to access most of them, so can't tell how much coverage there is. Most results in digitised newspapers are about actors playing the role in stage and screen performances. The book A Talent to Deceive that is listed in the Bibliography of this article could perhaps be used as a reference - only snippet views are available on Google Books. I'll see what I can find. If the article is not kept, it could be selectively merged to Agatha Christie#Works#Works of fiction#Other detectives, where he is not even mentioned. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 15 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[5][6][7] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Unlike songs or movies, books are not notable because of how many are sold. Literature and popular culture are measured very differently. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions