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

Alison Tyler

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

No significant coverage from reliable sources. The Guardian source is a blogpost that only mentions the subject in passing. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those looking for sources, there appears to be another author with a pen name of Alison Tyler (Elise Title is her real name) who writes romance novels. Given the book titles and geography, I think these are different people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her work has gotten reviews in Publishers Weekly [1] [2] [3] [4] and Library Journal [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'd want to see a little bit more in order to satisfy NAUTHOR, but some of her work seems to be notable. Will keep looking. MCE89 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mrityu Diary

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

Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article was deleted due to No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time.

Previous discussion of the author and his books:

Like the other books, I believe this one fails WP:NBOOK. Source review in the comments below. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Source review:

Source 1 is the book's page on the publisher's website. Primary source, not independent.
Source 2 and Source 3 are reviews by the same person, Padam Bhattarai (one in English, one in Nepali) - so regardless, they would only count as one source for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. These reviews are suspicious: they appear to be the only thing that Mr. Bhattarai has written for either website. Someone named "Padam Bhattarai" appears to be Facebook friends with Acharya and is interacting with his posts: [9] Notably, Republica (Source 2) was deemed not reliable for a review of Acharya's work in this AfD due to an apparent (different) conflict of interest.
Source 4 is a review in The Rising Nepal by Narayan Prasad Ghimire. Mr. Ghimire seems to have a special interest in Acharya's books: he has also reviewed Sex, Desire, and Taboo for the Kathmandu Post [10] and Swapnabhumi for Nepal News [11]. In addition, Mr. Ghimire and Acharya appear to be Facebook friends: see e.g. this recent post with a comment from Mr. Ghimire. Major COI red flags here.
Source 5 is a review for the Sahitya Post by Badri Prasad Dhakal (in Nepali). The Sahitya Post is a "literary portal" that seems to accept a wide variety of content from writers, including promotional and self-promotional content. Its reliability and editorial controls are dubious.

Astaire (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the history of the other articles about this author and their books, I would need unambiguous evidence of independent reviews to be satisfied that this one passes WP:NBOOK. Per the source analysis above, I don't think this comes close to that standard. All of the reviews are highly suspicious at best. MCE89 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Nash Literary Agency

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

It is not meeting WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Forest Apart

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

Can't find any reviews or bestseller listings for this e-book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Suggesting a redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014). Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014) as suggested. I couldn't find any reviews or other coverage either. MCE89 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. No WP:SIGCOV and article is just a plot summary. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United States of America. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I couldn't find sufficient coverage of this book to justify the article. The single source it has is the NYT bestseller list, which is meaningless, since every book ever is a NYT bestseller. Cortador (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has now been established. Cortador (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NBOOK, appearing on the New York Times bestseller list counts as one of the two non-trivial independent published works about the book that we need. The book also gets a paragraph in this article in The Economist, and is briefly discussed in this profile of Savage in the New Yorker. There are also passing mentions in the New York Times [12] [13] and in at least a dozen or so academic books about the American right. This is the kind of book where we're never going to see traditional "reviews" in reliable publications, but it does seem to have been discussed. I don't think what I've found is quite enough yet to satisfy NBOOK, but it's close. MCE89 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This 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.
Sources
1. Rubin, Jeff (2005-05-30). "Enjoy Conservative Books at the Beach". Human Events. Vol. 61, no. 19. pp. 400–401. EBSCOhost 17296644.
  The review notes: "In his new book, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, he lays it on the line: "You will not have a nation," he says, "unless you awaken to the reality that America has become pacified; America has become feminized; and America is being compromised from without and within. You cannot let them get away with this. Can America be saved? Is it too late? I believe that with God's will and with your determination to confront the mental disorder of liberalism whenever and wherever it is found, America can both survive and thrive." In this book, he shows how. In this third installment of his bold, biting and bestselling trilogy, Savage offers provocative and practical ways to reclaim our social, political and cultural integrity. Through a compelling narrative of current trends and events, Savage chronicles the continued assault on the sacred pillars of American life (the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Sanctity of Marriage) by the High Priests of Ultra-Liberalism. In each chapter, the Savage Spotlight of Truth casts its brilliant light on the tactics used by liberals to spread their leftist agenda. Savage follows his analysis with specific actions, arguments and recommendations for action that the reader can ingest to counter the radical left."
2. Sanders, Ken (2005). "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage". Z Magazine. pp. 56–57. Retrieved 2025-05-24 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Want support with that accusation? You're reading the wrong book. Savage's ludicrous hyperbole is offensive not only to those who consider themselves liberal (a term which, by the way, Savage never defines), it is likely offensive to anyone who survived or lost loved ones in Hitler's holocaust. ... In Chapter One , "More Patton , Less Patent Leather," Savage blames liberals and their " trickle-down PC stupidity" for Bush's debacle in Iraq. Savage quotes "one lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless," as advising his troops on the eve of battle to "tread lightly" in Iraq because of its historical and cultural significance. For Savage, this nameless lieutenant colonel typifies how "liberalism has so warped the sensibilities of Mr. and Mrs. America," that Bush got "trapped trying to fight a politically correct war." There is (at least) one problem with Savage's example of liberalism's weakening U.S. military resolve: the "lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless" was none other than Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins, commanding officer of the First Battalion of the Royal Irish ..."
3. "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". AudioFile. April–May 2006. Archived from the original on 2025-05-24. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The review notes: "Reader Mark Warner clearly understands Savage's style and seeks to represent it as closely as possible. Warner comes close to capturing Savage's outrage, irony, and humor, but he doesn't capture it completely. Nevertheless, Warner's reading is clear and even-paced."
4. "Fools' gold: As America becomes more polarised, its political writing is getting worse". The Economist. 2005-10-06. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: "An altogether less agreeable polemicist is Michael Savage, whose latest book is called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He calls homosexual activists “brown shorts” and thinks Mr Bush has messed up by not killing nearly enough people in Iraq. He believes that the United Nations and other shadowy international groups are planning to “over-ride our democracy” and replace the Bill of Rights with “a new, watered-down bill of wrongs from the new, ruling bureaucrats”. He wonders why Republican leaders have not warned people about this. He uses the term “village idiots” to describe a body—the Democratic Leadership Council—whose name he cannot spell."
5. Graff, Amy (2020-02-14). "The most commonly stolen book at the San Francisco Public Library may surprise you". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-07-23. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: ""The one author our head of collections has to check regularly and purchase new copies of our books by Michael Savage," library spokesperson Kate Patterson wrote in an email. "We check once a year to see if all the copies are gone and reorder. We have moved to e-book for most of them, so we can ensure copies are around. The main title that disappears quickly is 'Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder.'" ... Released in April 2005, 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' was on the New York Times best-seller list for three weeks and "attacks the insanities and inanities of extreme leftist thought.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codava Makkada Coota

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

None of the articles are about the organization, just mentions. Mostly WP:ROTM stuff about events they participated in. (to be fair, please review this version from before I removed some WP:NEWSORGINDIA content). 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Organizations, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched the typical WP:BEFORE places, newspapers.com, and PressReader - didn't find anything more in-depth than mentions. No inherited notability from association w/ notable writers, and no clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an small, independent press publishing poetry and literary fiction. These publications are not often covered in mainstream press, yet their publications play a role in literary communities. Curious why, with public funding of arts largely stripped in the U.S., librarians being fired, this is the right time to delete a small press from Wikipedia? 174.238.164.181 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always required that topics be notable as established via WP:RS. This article was created by an WP:SPA (which usually indicates they likely had a very close connection to Elixir Press) almost 8 years ago. It wasn't appropriate to publish articles on non-notable topics back then, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my 20-minute search for references came up empty. Note that there is another, unrelated press named "Golden Elixir Press". (Note: I think this argument is from User:A. B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that was me. Thanks for signing for me. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in terms of referencing that would support notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Golden Elixir Press" a notable press by these standards? 63.135.182.71 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure given the current referencing although it does seem to be the primary/original publisher of translated copies of several notable Taoist texts. Whether or not it is notable is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— many of the authors who have been published by Elixir Press continue to be active and are producing new works. Because of the nature of Elixir’s work as an independent press focused in part on debut authors, several authors may have been lesser known at the time of their publication, but have grown in notability. Agree that to focus on the possible deletion of an article on an independent press is particularly troubling when literature and the arts are being devalued at large. 64.135.133.153 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Press itself isn't going away, nor are the authors or published works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics as established by reliable sources, which this article has always lacked going back for eight years now. If the argument is that it enhances this specific press or helps them maintain visibility, that is directly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--it is troubling given premier role this press plays and context: current state of the arts/Wikipedia's purpose/the need for public support of poetry even if things were glorious. It is one of a few presses that new poets DREAM their work will be published by. People in the poetry world look to it too, to identify and read up and coming writers. And they make beautiful books also an endangered art. KEEP! 2601:19B:4102:1370:7097:75E6:4823:96F8 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This is an established small press offering a well known first book prize, which is often won by writers who go on to greater fame. Worth keeping as a listing if you are interested in accurate info about literary publishing, small presses or writers in America. Poems published by this press have been featured on Poetry Daily, The Slowdown and more. 73.61.242.125 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that these IPs are all making the name (non-policy based) argument, have all never edited before, all geolocate to one of two of the same regions, and have highly specific and unusual concerns, I worry that there may be WP:CANVASSing going on here. I ask any closer to take that into consideration. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Peony Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Searching on gscholar, archive.org found virtually nothing except content about books they published, which they do not inherit the notability of. Even for a book publisher there are also not that many hits for their books, it is almost entirely citations to one book they published (which is notable), to an extent where I was able to look through the citations relatively completely. The 4th source is sigcov... but written by the founder of the company. The single piece of independent sigcov is the 5th source in this article, which is [14] this, which is fine. But that is only 1 source. Not enough for GNG or the higher NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. I've added three more independent sources, being a scholarly monograph, an art market paper and an obituary. It seems to me that it constitutes substantial coverage alongside the existing ones, and the fact that new research is appearing on it sixteen years after it closed is a sign of notability. Thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monograph has a paragraph, the obituary has 1 mention. The other source has 3 sentences. Not horrible, but not enough to pass WP:NCORP. I realize Mabel Lee has an article and she is the founder so now instead of deletion I would recommend merging to Mabel Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

： Have added another source in Chinese. Of course I understand that the source base is small, but I wrote the article because I couldn't figure out what this press that had published several important writers was. Having figured out via research what it was, it seems to me very much the point of Wikipedia editing to provide that information for others. I can guarantee that it is notable for people working on translation studies in Australia, which I grant you is a small group, but we exist. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that you made this article for a good reason but the sources here do not pass WP:SIRS (required for organization articles). Notability isn't inherited from the books they publish. If it is merged the information on the publisher won't be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have added another source that I consider to be SIRS if you care to review. I suppose much of it rides on what you think is 'significant.' There are now four English IRS sources of several sentences and a fifth one in Chinese. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine. Now we have the two sources about the company, but this is still not enough for WP:NCORP per WP:MULTSOURCES. The rest are one or two sentence mentions, which do not count for notability. The rest of the English sources are passing, and the Chinese source mentions them for a single sentence ( non WP:SIRS coverage). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be factual, besides the sources you don't dispute (Galik; Taylor), Brennan is by the narrowest definition four sentences and Bruno three (or four if you also include p. 121). The Chinese source mentions them not, as you write, for a single sentence, but two (it doesn't permit copy-pasting, but the section begins with 其中 and goes to footnote 6). In all of these cases the surrounding text also bears on the situation of WP in the translation and publishing environment of the day. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only sentence in the Chinese source that refers to them: "其中A.R.戴维斯的“杜甫雨诗赏析”是我读到的最好最真切的唐诗英译! 80年代初悉尼大学的Mabel Lee(陈顺妍)博士还创立了野牡丹出版社，出版了大量优秀的亚洲文学翻译作品以及早期移民的英文作品比如来自广东的Stanley Hunt先生写的《从石岐到悉尼》" [

[One of the best and most authentic English translations of Tang poems I have ever read is A.R. Davies' “An Appreciation of Du Fu's Rain Poems”! In the early 80's, Dr. Mabel Lee (Chen Shunyan) from the University of Sydney also founded the Wild Peony Press, which published a large number of excellent translations of Asian literature, as well as early immigrants' works in English, such as “From Shiqi to Sydney” written by Mr. Stanley Hunt from Guangdong.] the footnote is a citation and does not contain more sentences. The next sentence does not mention them, only Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using text on the "surrounding situation" would be WP:SYNTH.

And sentences about Lee that do not mention Peony do not count for information on the publisher. And three sentences in a single short paragraph is also not WP:SIRS ... I can't access anything in Southerly but I would be surprised if the quality of coverage was any different. Most of these sources are really about Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Chinese source; I misread, apologies. As for Southerly, it isn't fair to make assumptions if you haven't read it. From p. 215 of the Southerly article:

"Considering the decline in foreign language education over the last ten years — especially those languages key to our region such as Bahasa Indonesia, Mandarin and Japanese — it might be said, in Howardspeak, monolingualism is all about a fair go. This is a sad possibility for the broader Australian community, which is in actu - ality richly polyglot. Thankfully, Mabel Lee’s and A. D. Syrokomia- Stefanowska’s work with Wild Peony has been a particular boon, bringing in work that may not have otherwise appeared, and is part of a larger, albeit under-sup ported, effort on the part of Australian translators, native-speaking collabor tors and publishers to offer foreign language literature to an Australian audience. Mabel Lee’s translations of Nobel Prize winner Gao Xingjian and Yang Lian, Simon Patton’s translations, editing and collaboration through the Chinese pages of Poetry International Web, Ouyang Yu’s work with Otherland, Peter Boyle’s translations from Spanish and French, and Leith Morton’s translations of Shuntaro Tanikawa, Ishigaki Rin, and Koike Masayo, along with various Australian literary journals (notably Heat and Southerly), and Melbourne University’s Asialink Program are some of the key recent examples of Australian translators and pub - lishers working against the abashed and embarrassed tide of Australian monolingualism. The publication of collections such as Naikan Tao and Tony Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, and the work of small publishers such as Wild Peony Press, are an important move against cultural parochialism. Sadly, Tao’s and Prince’s anthol - ogy represents one of the last publications for Wild Peony. It is difficult not to think, the Australian literary community might be well served supplementing the proliferation of annual Best of Australian Poetry anthologies with a Best of World Poetry or a Best of Poetry in Translation. Going by Tao’s and Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, the benefits would be considerable." When I say "surrounding situation" I just mean that Michael Brennan (poet) is here substantially talking about the role of Wild Peony (among other publishers) in Australian letters, even when he does not write "Wild Peony" in every sentence.WP:SYNTH does not apply and it is not all about Mabel Lee. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is about what I expected from that. I think I've said enough words so I am going to let other people comment on if this coverage is WP:SIRS compliant. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the quote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two parties presenting valid but opposing arguments. We need to hear from more participants willing to carefully examine the relevant sources and deliver an opinion here. And because it is buried in part of the discussion, I'll just mention that the nominator is now recommending a Merge and not a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dryad Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Merrill Leffler is notable and if we had an article on him I would suggest redirecting there, but as of now we do not. Searching for sources on the press I found nada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions