Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Information & Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Links at HealthHaven.com

Points of interest related to Literature on Wikipedia
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions – Cleanup

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

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:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users 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.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

[edit] Literature

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 SNOW keep. Consensus that the article should not be deleted is overwhelmingly clear; other discussion can continue elsewhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare

(Find sources: "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non notable book. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. References in article indicate signficant coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and suggest early snowball close- Sources aplenty showing the GNG is met and then some. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Reply - these "references" are mostly blogs and do not demonstrate how this subject is notable. There has not been signifiant coverage of this text, nor credible reviews. As such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sites like Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily News, and The Guardian aren't blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - The first is a blog entry, the second only address the subject as part of a larger story, the third source is about is not a review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Entertainment Weekly is not a blog and the third reference is significant coverage. There is no rule that reliable sources for books have to be reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
      - Significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, significant coverage-not a blog, and significant coverage-not a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Passes WP:BK. None of the references are blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Note The book doesn't meet these requirements;

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Due to the above standards, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, or merge. Most of what is quoted from is pre-release hype, which I'd discount. But parodies of major works by candidates for high office should be notable, if not individually then at least collectively; this work already rates such a paragraph sized treatment in the main entry for Going Rogue. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment As the sources and notability are not sufficient for an article - a merge might be a better solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- First you say they are blogs. Then you say it's not enough coverage when it is according to WP:BK. All of the sources are newspapers. Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Here's more reliable sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- These references are mostly blogs, other articles mention the book in passing and/or comment that it exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Major newspapers are not blogs! Not being a review doesn't mean that it isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: How are Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico.com, Publishers Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, and NPR blogs? Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and suggest early snowball close. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For example, the Today Show staff writes 24 paragraphs about it [1], Roll Call writes about 700 words on it [2], etc. Clearly this book meets WP:GNG as these sources are not simply self-published, personal "blogs" or a "mention [of] the book in passing and/or comment that it exist". Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly worth keeping What on earth is wrong about the article? It has plenty of reasonable enough references. Cousin Kevin (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Ism schmism, may we take your "Thanks" as read? I sense that we've all been thanked quite enough already. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the notability guideline. It's bad. Quote from above: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes (my emphases). First, what's so special about literature classes? Charles Darwin, for example, is about as historically significant an author as I can come up with. Yet unlike such dreary scriveners as D H Lawrence and Ezra Pound, his work would not be studied in literature classes. Indeed, I suspect that this paragraph is written by some well-meaning person who is blissfully uninformed about literary studies or further education: why else talk about study of the author's life in "literature classes"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment the notability requirements listed above are standard. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can you answer my above question? Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know which is sillier, the notability requirement or your compulsion to thank. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Clearly WP:notable, mentioned in multiple Wp:RS and referenced. Per the above overwhelming consensus, discussion should probably be closed. Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep good refs, and the writers contributing are significant political writers. this is not a joke book. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:BK by a mile. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong KEEP. Passes WP:BK, WP:V, and WP:RS. This is a serious work of political writing. This book (ISBN 0757315240), a New York Times bestseller, should not be confused with a book by the same title that is a coloring book (ISBN 0615332773). This book is edited by two senior editors at The Nation. Further evidence of its seriousness are essays contained therein by Gloria Steinem, Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, Frank Rich, and Robert Reich. The book has received coverage in Publishers Weekly, MSNBC, New York Daily News, and The Guardian, among others. — Spike Toronto 07:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This book is not a parody. The only thing about it that is satire or parody is the title. — Spike Toronto 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge

(Find sources: "Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Incorrectly titled, this article is on a non-notable book. It's one of those "inspired by" types that aren't shelved in alphabetical order by author in the bookstores, but relegated to their own little section. No secondary sources for notability exist for this book, the article consists of a regurgitation of the WP:PLOT, and the author is a redlink. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep I had no difficulty finding and adding a source to the article. No consideration seems to have been given to alternatives to deletion such as merger with Isaac Asimov's Robot City and there is no discussion at the article. The nomination thus fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there is nothing sourced to merge, and the title is incorrect. It is doubtful that the suggested merge target is itself notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Title changes are accomplished by moves, not by deletion. Your other point is puzzling as I already added some sourced content. I'll add some more to be sure. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete this wasn't written by asimov. At any rate, fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov played a significant part, providing the background, continuity and story idea which the guest author fleshed out. As this tale forms part of his major Robot/Foundation oeuvre, this satisfies element 5 of WP:BOOK. Colonel Warden (talk)

Keep I deprodded the article. Granted this series of articles is poorly written, but it does cover a notable series of books by guest authors sponsored by Asimov, as Colonel Warden has pointed out. They are well-known in the Science Fiction genre. Sources are not difficult to find. The article needs editing, not deletion. As a side-note, why is this article being singled out for nomination, as opposed to the rest of the series? Is it singularly non-notable? Plvekamp (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Smerge WP:PLOT seems like a problem here. Overly detailed plot summary and nothing else. WP:RS would be needed with significant coverage of this specific novel, not just a mention that substantiates its existence or provides only a synopsis. Might be better off handled by smerging to Isaac Asimov's Robot City as suggested above and not giving it undue weight. WP:BEFORE is at the moment a best practice guideline, one that is indeed usually advisable to follow, although not a formal guideline or policy. A nomination can't "fail WP:BEFORE." Making it a guideline or policy is something that's been discussed, I believe, something I might myself support. WP:BUNDLE states "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." I did a big bundle of articles all of the same kind with the same problems, and I'm not sure if it was the best way to go about it. Either way, somebody will have an objection. It seems odd that WP:BUNDLE suggests a trial balloon, implying that one might use it as precedent, when precedent isn't exactly respected. It's hard to figure WP out sometimes. Шизомби (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lies (Gone series)

(Find sources: "Lies (Gone series)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Speedy declined. Written about a book that does not yet exist, has no reviews, and is written by an author that barely has a stub on wikipedia. Seems to me that the only purpose of it is to promote the (supposedly) forthcoming book. If that's not enough, go for WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete I declined the speedy, but only because the criteria didn't appear to apply. When the only sources about a book are at Twitter, there's no way that it can be notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Well, Amazon appears to have heard of it [3], and the publisher has a website about it [4]. Reliable and independent sources, though, I'm not finding any. Delete (for now) per WP:CRYSTAL. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfy as the previous books of the series are notable. Armbrust (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep for now, notable upcoming book. I suspect the best treatment for this series would be to merge them all into one article though. See also Gone (novel). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And your sources per WP:N are...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Nyttend and Bradjamesbrown. I think the book will ultimately be found to be notable, and we'll have an article - but this one is premature. No prejudice against a properly sourced article following the book's release, provided that those sources are reliable and independent. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Women of the Apocalypse

(Find sources: "Women of the Apocalypse" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable book, appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [5]. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:BK. Warrah (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not (yet) notable. The book came out a few months ago; if it ends up getting more coverage, or goes into a wider release, or otherwise becomes notable, then an article may be warranted. But as it stands, the sourcing is not available to make a good show of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dynastia Miziołków

(Find sources: "Dynastia Miziołków" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep on the basis of the information in the article in the Polish WP, of which the Google Translation is [6]. The key information is that it won the Polish award for Children's Bestseller of the Year for 1996 and another Polish prize of significance [7] for 1995. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per the awards and the sources now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PROD Nominations

[edit] 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)

[edit] Deletion Review

The Storks

[edit] Poetry

Contents