Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:53, 24 June 2010

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

Motion Mountain

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something Incredible This Way Comes

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

Non-notable unauthorized biography. – Zntrip 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just out of interest, in what way does a biography have to be "authorized"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An "authorized" biography would be one that the band approves and helps write by providing the biographer with information. Unauthorized biographies are quite common, and thus would have to be significant to warrant an article. This one in question doesn't seem to have any notable qualities. There are at least four unauthorized biographies of the band listed at Amazon.com. – Zntrip 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was "In what way does a biography have to be 'authorized' according to Wikipedia policy?" - if you can show any policy that rules against "unauthorized" biographies, that would be helpful. In general, many biographies are not "authorized" by their subjects (and I'm not just thinking of biographies of bands), but that does not prohibit their inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, if a biog had to be authorized by its subject for inclusion, then we would only see favourable biogs being included in Wikipedia, which would clearly be against our WP:NPOV policy. Notability is what counts here, not whether the biog is authorized by the subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating the article for deletion simply because it is an "unauthorized" biography. One relevant example is Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, which is an "unauthorized" biography of a band, but is still noteworthy because the author conducted extensive interviews with Kurt Cobain. The article in question, however, has no notable qualities and is one of several such biographies written about the band. All of them are rather obscure and do not meet any of the notability criteria for books. – Zntrip 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - we seem to be agreed that "authorized" is not a relevant criterion and that the decision rests on notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, does not seem to satisfy WP:BOOK . Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Innovation

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

There is no evidence at all for notability, and does not meet notability requirement for books.Farhikht (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And see the author of the book!Farhikht (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are all WP mirrors, etc. no indication found of any notability. dont forget to remove redlinks if deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2010 (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. Looks like a mass afd for the rest is next Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could the nominator please explain why the book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Eleven books in the series have their own articles - they're linked at Guardians_of_Ga'hoole#Main_Books - and I don't see why this one should be any different. I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just opining that they should either all go or all stay. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neelix, instead of AfDin all the books in the series one by one (i believe books 12 and 14 were AfDed, while 13 and 15 were prodded), why not create for all the eleven together and see if we can achieve consensus to merge everything back into the series article. AfDing one by one is a duplication of effort.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other Guardians of Ga'Hoole book article deletion discussion I have taken part in was for Book 12. I normally try to give each article its own discussion because, even among articles that are very similar, levels of notability often vary. Do you believe all the books to be insufficiently notable to justify separate articles? If so, feel free to create an AfD that includes all the individual book articles. Neelix (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the whole series into one article. There may be a case for merging them to be made, but deleting just one of the series of 11 is just plain silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - It is not silly to delete an article about one in a series. Think of the Smallville episodes; some of the episodes are notable and others are not. If a mass deletion discussion took place, either articles on notable subjects would have been deleted or articles on non-notable subjects would never have been properly addressed. The same may very well be the case with the Guardians of Ga'Hoole books; I believe that they deserve individual discussions. Neelix (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NB and WP:GNG. We can pretty quickly nominate the rest for deletion under similar grounds if this closes as a delete. Claritas § 11:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this fails WP:GNG in general and WP:NB in particular. Reyk _YO! 02:16, 8 July 2010 (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 Merge to author. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America

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

This book has no third party reliable sources that I can find, and therefore fails WP:NB. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on talk page of article by article author)Hi, I'm trying to create a page for a book that I love. Sorry if it's taking me a while to get everything in order. I do not believe this page should be deleted-- it's a valid book with great reviews. I was kind of surprised that the book was not on here already and decided to add it.

We have notability standards; not everything that exists deserves an article on Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NB, which requires multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, which I do not see here. If you are Jennifer Storm, or are working for her, you should realize Wikipedia's strong policy against advertising, and the WP:COI policy. She has priorly attempted to write about herself and her books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, I am not her nor do I work for her. The book was nominated for one of the 40 best adult non-fiction books in 2008 by the PSLA. That's how I found it and why I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrown224 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i think the authors website shows some evidence of notability, although it would have to be verified. mention in the Advocate, and an interview by dr drew, i think helps. see [1]. we cant use her site as a reference, but each individual source can be cited if found online or in print. her position as executive director of stated org, and profiles of her in major outlets, mean that her books (her second one out just now) probably should get automatic notability, as long as they are not trivial themselves (cookbooks, gift books, ephemera, etc). I am probably not ready to do the work to actually improve the article, but thats not necessary here, we just have to decide if there is a possibility the article can show notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article on the author. Whe has more than one book, on the same general topic, and he information will be best combined. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with author's article - I can't see any indication that the book meets WP:NB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:43, 23 June 2010 (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

Template nominations

Template:BibleAsFact (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:BibleAsFact)
Template:in-religion-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:in-religion-universe)
Template:Bible-in-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Bible-in-universe)

Deletion Review

The Storks

Poetry

Herbert Heron (writer)

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Modern_era: where he is listed with a source; coverage exists so that other sources can be added and some content merged. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (see below, given sources presented, for the sake of transparency, note that I received a message inviting me to reconsider my !vote in light of new sources).-Mushy Yank (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone has eviscerated this article -- I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, indeed, removed sources tend to prove a much better article is possible, I am therefore not opposed to a plain Keep, another solution being a Merge with Forest Theater. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Djflem (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem, pray elaborate: regarding whose comments and for what reason should we read this extremely long essay? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to address the 'walled garden' comment and the idea that any and or all articles written by Greghenderson should be deleted. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not valid reason for deletion.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! I agree with you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification of the context. I still don't think eviscerating and then nominating a page is a good approach, but, honestly, that's just me. As for "self-published sources", maybe that was the reason you blocked that user but may I ask if Watkins, R. G., Hoyle, M. F. (1925). History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: Biographical S.J. Clarke (1925) was self-published? It was removed (used 5 times). Thanks again. (I will stand by my ~~triple~~ !vote, if I may; opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem apparently the page was deleted; so maybe another target could be considered? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 09:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is some coverage here, here, here and here. I think its enough to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable article Jack1956 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [2], and some analysis here [3] and here [4]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [5], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvad

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Incredible This Way Comes}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is Innovation}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragment Earth}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America}}