Points of interest related to Literature on Wikipedia:
History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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[edit]

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition

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

The book is notable only in its relation to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Two out of three sources (1 and 3) are primary, source 2 does not mention the book (source is from 2011, and the book is from 2022). It maybe notable enough for ~2 sentences in the SICP article. Artem.G (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. Artem.G (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs This book is an adaption of the original book that is the subject of the article I have linked to. No need for a separate article — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are book reviews (This one in an online journal) [1], I'm not sure this would pass notability for books. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Even if we had more sources about this edition specifically (this has some usable material, for example), it just wouldn't make sense to give it a separate page. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fathers of the Church

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the book exists! [2] [3] and there are reviews [4] [5] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Logos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and @Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May the odds be ever in your favor

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

There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:

1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
1 just mentions the phrase
the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [6] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Oregon Battle of the Books controversy

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

Clearly fails WP:EVENT. Local incident that had no lasting or widespread impact. The competition involved in this controversy (Oregon Battle of the Books) also appears to be non-notable. However, the incident is worthy of a short mention at Melissa (novel), so relevant information should be merged there. Astaire (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon and Literature. Astaire (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Rising (book)

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

Fails NBOOK and GNG. I was able to find one review from Melody Maker on ProQuest (which I could not actually access, but I'm going to accept it's sigcov), this however is not enough for NBOOK, which needs two. Merge/redirect to author Gavin Baddeley if there aren't more reviews? There are a few sources that are interviews with Baddeley that were printed in many newspapers, and while that would be useful for expanding the article if it passed NBOOK, does not count for notability since they don't provide independent commentary on the book itself. It's halfway there, but I haven't been able to find another review.

FWIW I did remove the sources from the page, but not a single one actually mentioned the book, just about the topics the book covered. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to author page without coverage in two independent sources. Astaire (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fulmard (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Gavin Baddeley per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
This entry from Amazon.com notes:
Review
1. Fascinating and often shocking but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone. --Melody Maker, 2nd Feb, 2000.
2. "The result of six years of intensive research, Lucifer Rising is lavishly illustrated with rare and unusual images, most of which are previously unseen... Baddeley has written a definitive study of a timeless subject allowing his interviewees to speak for themselves while ignoring the well-trodden pathways followed by other less-discerning writers. As a study of the potent blend of the occult and the cult of rock, it s unparalleled. Highly recommended. --Record Collector, January, 2000.
3. "Forgive us, Lord, for this is an entertaining, witty read." --Maxim, March, 2000.
There is a copy of the 51-word Melody Maker review here:
Subtitled "Sin, Devil Worship And Rock'n'roll", this starts as a history of early Satanism, through medieval black masses, to thrash, death and black metal. And, of course, Marilyn Manson. Fascinating and often shocking - but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone.
The Melody Maker review is too short to be significant coverage. It is possible this book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria from the Record Collector and Maxim sources, but I do not have access to them. This article in the Evening Standard discusses the book but is largely an interview with the author. I am fine with a redirect without prejudice against restoring the article if significant coverage is verified or found.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few books and films with this name, so hard to find reviews about this particular book. I couldn't find anything we can use and the sources given now aren't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Lucifer Rising (novel). I recommend preserving the article's history as I wrote above. To address Oaktree b's comment about there being a few books with this name, we could do this:
1. Move Lucifer Rising (book) to Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book). Redirect Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book) to Gavin Baddeley so that the history is preserved under the redirect.
2. Redirect Lucifer Rising (book) to the disambiguation page Lucifer Rising, which can mention both Lucifer Rising (novel) and the Gavin Baddeley book.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard The book’s subtitle is “Sin, Devil Worship and Rock'n'Roll” so maybe it could be moved to the title with the subtitle? I forget the preferred style. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman

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

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Encyclopedia

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

Doesn't pass GNG. There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from "Reference & User Services Quarterly" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/merge to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia, which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Museum as suggested seems fine. This is basically an extension of the collections housed by the Museum. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Judaism, Websites, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Part of the museum and can easily be covered within. Star Mississippi 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in a TV Nation

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

I can't find sources that go in detail about this book beyond "Michael Moore wrote this". Redirect to Michael Moore? Or TV Nation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two sources about the subject:
1. Deggans, Eric (1998-12-21). "For those TV viewers who can still read" (pages 1 and 2). Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "But the story of how Michael Moore got this subversive bit of TV past the media buyers on Madison Avenue and cookie-cutter programers at NBC proves an engaging, delightful story. ... Wondering how Moore put together a story showing New York cabdrivers are more likely to pick up a white guy who served prison time for murder than a black man with a clean record? ... All of these stories and more fill out the pages of Adventures in a TV Nation, a blow-by-blow account of the stories behind the stunts that made TV Nation one of the most entertaining experiments in social criticism around."
2. This entry in Book Review Index, 1999 Cumulation notes that there was a review in Adventures in a TV Nation in "Ent We - N 27 '98 – p73 [1–50]".
  This entry suggests that Adventures in a TV Nation was reviewed in the 3 July 1998 edition of Entertainment Weekly. This was the home page of Entertainment Weekly in 1999. This is an example book review published on 17 February 1999. I was unable to find a review of Adventures in a TV Nation saved in Internet Archive. I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#1998 book review of Adventures in a TV Nation in Entertainment Weekly for information about this source.
I support a merge to TV Nation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion if the book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The book is about the author Michael Moore's work on the television show TV Nation, so I recommend redirecting to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation.
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding a mention to TV Nation and merging then (well, basically redirecting). The Tampa source is decent but the other one (as found by the people where you requested it) is only one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to the discussion about the Entertainment Weekly article: "The November 27, 1998 review by Bruce Fretts is only 1 sentence long: "In-your-face documentarian and working-class advocate chronicles the development of his late, Emmy-award-winning newsmagazine show"."

I agree with a merge/redirect to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation since there is only one good source, which is insufficient for the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Way

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

This object does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources and I could not find SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor plot point; the article is only sourced (implicitly) to the Oz books themselves. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on extremely minor fictional element. Searches turned up nearly nothing on the fictional concept, and the article name would not serve as a particularly useful Redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Domain

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

No reviews or commentary found after a search, one or two passing mentions, and a single sentence in an article from The Canberra Times found on ProQuest: "A minor Pratchett Discworld spin-off is to be found in Death's Domain (Corgi, 27pp, $14.95), by Pratchett and Paul Kidby, which is essentially a Discworld map of Death's house, garden and golf course. Only for Pratchett completists.", which is not enough to sustain its own article.

Could probably be redirected to another Discworld article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 63 (and a bit on 59) has almost a page of coverage, The Magic of Terry Pratchett has brief commentary on how it did not sell so well, Reactor Magazine has a sentence of commentary on the fictional location of Death's Domain. So with The Canberra Times that may just be enough to write a non-stubby article, fullfilling WP:WHYN. It might also be little enough to merge, and the obvious target would be Discworld#"Mapps", for the time being. For something as weighty as the Discworld series this individual commentary might be a bit much, though. A good solution could be to spin that section out into an article covering all the Discworld Mapps (Discworld and the Disciplines also has more to say on the other Mapps, and I am sure there is more commentary out there), but such an article does not yet exist. Daranios (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. Sources exist that can verify that the books also exist but still no SIGCOV. There are multiple Discworld map articles that could be merged together into a single article but Discworld#"Mapps" is a preferred choice. Jontesta (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. I don't see that a merger has been attempted and contested, and suggest that would likely not have been contested. This may be a candidate for a SNOW merge if others agree. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens The reason I send things to AfD instead of PROD or merging them myself is the hope that people will find sources. Sure it probably wouldn't have been contested but I find you get a more fair result with AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise

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

I have found no mentions of this book that aren't passing mentions in publications about Star Trek. Enough to verify that the book exists, but not much else. There's probably a good merge/redirect target somewhere but I can't think of one. Author Lora Johnson, maybe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek technical manuals as WP:Alternative to deletion as suitable target for a topic which does not fullfill the notability requirements but does appear in a number of secondary sources (e.g. TV Zone #22, with a minor comment on canonicity beyond acknowledging its pure existence). Daranios (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The book exists and has some mentions. Without SIGCOV it can be listed at List of Star Trek technical manuals as an alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be a stand-alone article. It's unclear to me whether any information other than the title should be included at List of Star Trek technical manuals, no preference between an attempt to merge content and a redirect to a one-line entry on that page. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This article is suitable for Memory Alpha or the Great Link. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

Literature proposed deletions[edit]