Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works published posthumously

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep though there is room for significant improvement. ansh 666 07:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of works published posthumously

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, not seeing the encyclopedic topic here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article at the moment is close to a dog's breakfast (a skim through of it shows everything from films where the director or a lead actor had died before release through to those where a character playing a very small part did the same, and I'm sure there are similarly loose criteria for other parts of the list). That said, a Google search on "posthumous work" suggests that there are certainly critically-written lists of the "best" such films and books, as well as more than a few listicles of the same thing. With pruning, this may pass muster. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my Google bubble is different than yours, but I fail to see "suggestive" results. Sources would be nice. Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was in a rush when I commented earlier. A couple I can find would be:

This piece from the Guardian, discussing the concept of posthumous publication and referring to a handful of the literary works cited in the list.
This one, which is an editorial for an online publication, again citing a handful of at least the names involved.
This, and its friend are examples of the more "listicle" results, which I'm happy to agree with any criticism of regarding reliability etc, although the fact that such things do exist argues that the entries on these lists (or at least a subset of some of them) are discussed as a group in a range of sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to distinguish between the list topic and the concept of "posthumous work" (currently a redirect to the list). The first two sources do suggest an article at the latter. Ideally, I'd like to see what shopping list has: a dozen refs, most of which in scientific(ky) journals, discussing the article's topic. The concept of "posthumous work" is likely notable due to the conflict between author's intentions and publisher's interests wrt to publication. Also, the problems of editing unfinished works / fragment collections would probably merit a section in such an article. Lists of works along these criteria from a few decent sources would nix the deletion for me.

"I was in a rush" No worries. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, the more I think about it (I'll maintain a weak keep for the moment, but certainly won't feel slighted if the redirect is converted to an article with a few examples from here). Still looking for a couple of good discussions citing more than the "handfuls" of what's on this list as mentioned earlier, the presence of which may also give us some workable criteria for exclusion of a lot of the current list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's such a vague and broad term that will require continual tidying and pruning, otherwise I can foresee repeated additions from (for example) editors whose cousin worked as an extra on some film but died before it reached the cinemas - it's just unmanageable, and I don't see how such a list serves any useful function. It makes the whole Wikipedia project look comical. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but delete the drama and film sections. Movies and plays aren't "published". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publication says otherwise. Paradoctor (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be considered publication in some weird legal sense, but not by the general public. Also notice that neither movies or plays are mentioned in Publication#Types of publication. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try publishing: "Publishing is the dissemination of literature, music, or information" (my emphasis). See also "to produce or release for distribution".

"neither movies or plays are mentioned" Didn't notice the {{expand section}} tag? ;) E. g., Dramatic Publishing. Paradoctor (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films and plays are not information except in the very broadest sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles by significant shared feature, and per WP:CLN as complementary to Category:Works published posthumously. That categorization has been maintained ~~without controversy~~ since 2006 (the only CFD discussions I could find involved a rename), so I see no reason to raise doubts for a list that can be annotated to explain its inclusion. But also following the lead of that category structure it probably makes sense to turn this into a list of lists that focus on medium, so list of books published posthumously, etc. That would help better address the broadness of this list as some have complained above, and targeted lists could better address what is meant in the context of each medium. That is of course a matter for further development by editors. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"without controversy" That is not correct. More to the point, searching CfD and AfD for "posthumous" netted this:

The following are not about posthumous "works", but deal with the general criterion "posthumous"

The category has the same problem as the list. The "shared feature" is, by all appearances, not supported by reliable sources as a notable topic. It may be, but where are learned, scholarly, professional, or otherwise reliable sources concentrating on the topic? Shopping lists are as mundane and random as it gets, yet they do have an article supported by reliable sources. I'll gladly be shown my error, but I do insist on being shown. Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the CFD history. But the parent category has still survived, and specific categories were deleted were for reasons particular to categorization and the categorization of people, and even the nominators in many of those CFDs suggested lists instead. I also think the degree to which there are inclusion problems it is very medium-specific (with books, there is no question, with movies, arguably more ambiguous), such that wholesale deletion is not appropriate. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of the list is to show that there actually is quite a bit of argument going on. I'm not about to review all these discussions in-depth, save for pointing at WP:CCC.

But this is beside the point, as is the question of the vagueness of "posthumous" in some circumstances. The reason for this discussion is WP:DEL8. Where are the reliable sources establishing notability? I'm afraid two blog articles/opinion pieces are not sufficient to establish notability for "posthumous work", let alone the list topic. The two listicles are more nicely formatted clickbait than anything else, though I'll give Historylists points for being ad-free. Paradoctor (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable works should be listed, and so this then functions as an index of articles. There's no need for the fact by which the articles are indexed together to itself be notable (though you concede above that the topic of posthumous publication probably is anyway), to the extent that even makes sense as an analysis. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Shopping lists are the topic of scholarly discussion. There is even a one shopping list that is notable by itself. Where are the sources discussing lists of posthumous works, as opposed to sources discussing posthumous works themselves? Is there a notable list of posthumous works? Paradoctor (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about a list, because the list is not a subject; it is just our format of presenting information. LISTN is only one way to assess notability in relation to lists, its own terms state that it is not the only way, and it typically does not make sense when applied to article indexes. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim per Clarityfiend and Postdlf. We should have distinct lists for different significant kinds of works, and tight criteria for what it means for a work to be "published posthumously". For example, for films whose actor/actress died before the release, this should be limited to billed performers in a starring role in the film. bd2412 T 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , and edit as suggested just above by User:BD2412. Appropriate list, multiple sources for having such lists and for considering them notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Works published posthumously. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 13 December 2017 (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.