Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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]

AI book generation (2)

[edit]
AI book generation (2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a disputed draftifcation with a very frustrating page history. There's also the author's use of a clearly LLM-generated and curiously unsigned other than "Example (talk)" response using {{AFC comment}} in the mainspace, as seen here. However, I will focus this deletion discussion on the content issues of this article rather than the proceedure itself. It is largely a failure of multiple policies, mainly NOT but also V, and OR.

  • Fictitious or hallucinated references, eg: <ref name="rogers2020">{{cite journal |last1=Rogers |first1=Anna |last2=Kovaleva |first2=Olga |last3=Rumshisky |first3=Anna |title=A Primer on Neural Network Models for Natural Language Processing |journal=Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research |volume=57 |pages=615–686 |year=2020 |doi=10.1613/jair.1.11074 |doi-broken-date=20 July 2025 }}</ref>
  • Editorializing and unreferenced praising, eg "The company's ChatGPT interface has democratized access to advanced writing capabilities for individual authors", "Anthropic focuses on Constitutional AI approaches that emphasize safety and human preference alignment in generated content",
  • References to items that do not support the text that also focus on undue editorializing, eg: These advances culminated in increasingly sophisticated recurrent neural networks and early transformer experiments, setting the stage for the breakthrough developments that would follow.[1]

References

  1. ^ Ruder, Sebastian (2017-10-05). "A Review of the Recent History of Natural Language Processing". Retrieved 2024-12-20.
  • And a litany of words that give clear evidence that this was written by a LLM including "unprecedented text generation capabilities", "neural networks revolutionized text generation capabilities", "marked a watershed moment", and "launch of ChatGPT democratized access" (again).

Though also not a cause for deletion, but more evidence of generatation by an LLM and therefore more reasons to be suspect of the entire article is the inconsistent and varied use of depreciated referencing style throughout the article. This hole article reads as a checklist or a bingo sheet for Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing and should not be allowed to remain in the mainspace. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn I appreciate your detailed review, though I must respectfully challenge several of your assertions. Your nomination appears to conflate stylistic preferences with actual policy violations, which risks setting a problematic precedent for content evaluation on Wikipedia.
Regarding the Rogers et al. reference you cite as "fictitious," this appears to be a formatting error rather than fabrication. The paper exists and is widely cited in NLP literature. The DOI error notation suggests someone already identified this as a technical issue requiring correction, not deletion. Per WP:PRESERVE, we fix errors rather than delete entire articles. Your characterization of this as "hallucination" seems premature without attempting verification through WP:BEFORE.
Your examples of "editorializing" actually describe factual developments widely reported in reliable sources. The phrase about ChatGPT democratizing access reflects mainstream media coverage and academic analysis of the tool's impact. Similarly, Anthropic's Constitutional AI approach is their documented methodology, not editorial praise. Per WP:YESPOV, we can report how sources characterize developments without endorsing them.
The writing style concerns you raise are particularly troubling as deletion criteria. Terms like "watershed moment" and "revolutionized" appear throughout Wikipedia's technology articles, including many Featured Articles. Focusing on phraseology rather than verifiability and notability contradicts WP:NOT#STYLE and WP:NOTESSAY. Your argument essentially proposes deleting content based on suspicions about its creation method rather than its encyclopedic value.
Most significantly, you haven't addressed the article's clear satisfaction of WP:GNG. The topic has extensive coverage in Nature, Science, major newspapers, and academic journals. Multiple lawsuits, regulatory frameworks, and billion-dollar valuations demonstrate real-world notability. Deletion based on stylistic quibbles would deprive readers of information about a transformative technology affecting publishing, education, and creative industries.
I urge you to reconsider and instead help improve any specific issues through normal editing processes per WP:IMPERFECT. EditorSage42 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Example, couple things:
  • which risks setting a problematic precedent for content evaluation on Wikipedia.
    • AFD discussions do not set precedent for Wikipedia. Maybe your LLM hasn't received an update yet but they make content decisions, not policy; those would be on more central locations like at the VP or in specific discussions in RfCs.
  • "editorializing" actually describe factual developments widely reported in reliable sources
    • So cite them then.
  • Your argument essentially proposes deleting content based on suspicions about its creation method rather than its encyclopedic value.
    • Correct. After reading the article I think it is a failure of other policies and believe it should be deleted.
  • Most significantly, you haven't addressed the article's clear satisfaction of WP:GNG.
    • I made a point of of pretty clearly saying it was a failure of other policies. See above.
  • I urge you to reconsider and instead help improve any specific issues through normal editing processes per WP:IMPERFECT.
So instead of doing that, I suggest it be deleted TNT style so as to not be insulting to either our readers or the reputation of the project as a whole. Thanks, Example (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Cohn (talk • contribs) 13:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn Bobby, thank you for the clarification, though your response reveals several concerning issues with your approach to this AfD.
Your dismissal of precedent concerns is noted, but you've missed the broader point. While individual AfDs don't set formal policy, they do establish patterns of practice that influence future decisions. Your approach of nominating for deletion rather than improvement contradicts the collaborative spirit of WP:EDITING.
Regarding citations, you've created a curious Catch-22. You simultaneously claim the article lacks sources while acknowledging it contains 80+ references. When you say "so cite them then," you're apparently asking for work that's already been done. This suggests you haven't thoroughly reviewed the article you're nominating for deletion, which raises questions about WP:BEFORE compliance.
Your admission that you're proposing deletion based on "suspicions about its creation method" rather than content evaluation is particularly troubling. This directly contradicts WP:DONTLIKEIT and established consensus that we judge articles by their content, not their creation method. Many of our best articles have been created using various tools and assistive technologies.
Most revealing is your proposed alternative of "TNT style" deletion to avoid "insulting our readers." This dramatic language suggests an emotional rather than policy-based approach. The existence of maintenance tags is precisely why we have improvement processes rather than deletion. Every article on Wikipedia could theoretically be tagged with something - that's why we have WP:IMPERFECT.
Your concern about "reputation of the project" rings hollow when you're advocating for removing comprehensive coverage of a notable topic. Readers searching for information about AI book generation - a topic covered by Nature, Science, and major news outlets - would find nothing, which damages Wikipedia's reputation far more than an article needing cleanup.
I note you still haven't contested the topic's notability or provided specific policy violations beyond vague assertions. If you truly believe specific statements are problematic, the constructive approach would be identifying them for correction, not wholesale deletion. Your current stance appears to prioritize destruction over construction, which ultimately serves neither our readers nor the project. EditorSage42 (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned in the AfC comments (that are still on the page after the originator disputed draftification) the AI influence was previously pointed out. Unfortunately, rather than an "Ok, I will edit" approach, the editor choses to argue. I see no option now but delete this page, delete the duplicate (Draft:AI book generation) and salt.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ldm1954 Ldm1954, your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes and appears to advocate for punitive rather than constructive action.
    Your characterization that defending an article constitutes inappropriate "arguing" contradicts WP:AFD guidelines, which explicitly encourage participants to "explain your reasoning" and engage in discussion. The purpose of AfD is precisely to allow debate about article merit. Expecting editors to simply acquiesce to deletion demands without discussion violates WP:CONSENSUS building principles.
    The suggestion to "delete and salt" is an extreme overreaction that violates WP:SALT guidelines. Salting is reserved for repeatedly recreated content that is "inherently unsuitable for an encyclopedia." You haven't demonstrated that AI book generation as a topic meets this criterion. Given the topic's coverage in Nature, Science, and major news outlets, salting would prevent coverage of a demonstrably notable subject.
    Your focus on "AI influence" in creation rather than content quality contradicts WP:DGFA - we don't delete articles based on how they were created but on whether they meet Wikipedia standards. Many featured articles have been created with various tools and assistance. If you believe specific content needs improvement, WP:SOFIXIT applies.
    The claim of "no option" but deletion is false. Wikipedia offers numerous options including editing, tagging for improvement, WikiProject assistance, and collaborative editing. Your jump to the most extreme option suggests a preference for destruction over construction, contrary to WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT.
    Most troublingly, you haven't addressed the article's satisfaction of WP:GNG or identified specific policy violations beyond vague allusions to "AI influence." Deletion discussions require policy-based arguments, not personal preferences about editing approaches. I encourage you to reconsider and engage constructively with content improvement rather than advocating for permanent topic bans through salting. EditorSage42 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand and value your contributions but I would like to point out several factual inaccurracies
  • WP:TNT states that pages beyond fixing can be deleted
  • the attribution history is irrelevant, pages are deleted all the time
  • MOS:USEPROSE says to use prose, this is what happens when you use AI to make a point.
  • The very first citation does not mention anything about "encompasses the automated production of fiction, non-fiction, academic texts, children's books"
  • Does not follow MOS:ATLEAST15%AIGENERATED, needs to use more ai
  • Let's examine the second one, it does not mention anything about "transformer architectures"
  • The article has 11 instances of "comprehensive" which is a peacockword
  • You should incorporate more kremlin propaganda in this article per MOS:RUSSIANO1
  • "Some platforms claim capabilities for generating complete manuscripts up to 100,000 words in single generation sessions, though independent verification of quality and coherence at such lengths remains limited." which platforms?
  • entire "Cross-disciplinary impact" is unsourced
  • Does not follow MOS:LEAD
  • Does not follow MOS:LAYOUT
  • You are allow to call a spade a spade
  • "coarse-to-fine methodology" this seems vague and like jargon*Per WP:NEWSWEEK the article should not use it
  • "European Union AI Act" not mentioned in source 62. Easternsahara (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Easternsahara Easternsahara, I appreciate your attempt at specificity, though your comment mixing legitimate concerns with obvious fabrications undermines your credibility in this discussion.
    First, several of your cited "policies" don't exist. There is no MOS:ATLEAST15%AIGENERATED or MOS:RUSSIANO1. Creating fake policy shortcuts to make a point violates WP:POINT and wastes other editors' time. This bad-faith approach calls into question your other assertions.
    Regarding WP:TNT, you've misrepresented it. TNT specifically states it's for "unsalvageable articles" and explicitly notes "If the problems are limited to a section or two, tags are more appropriate." An article with 80+ references addressing a notable topic hardly qualifies as "unsalvageable."
    Your citation spot-checks raise valid points that merit investigation. However, finding issues with specific citations supports cleanup, not deletion, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If source 62 doesn't mention the EU AI Act, we fix that citation. If the Vaswani paper doesn't use certain terminology, we adjust the text. This is routine Wikipedia editing.
    The "comprehensive" count is misleading without context. WP:PEACOCK refers to unsourced praise, not descriptive language used appropriately. Many Featured Articles use "comprehensive" when describing scope or coverage. Context matters.
    Your question about "which platforms" regarding the 100,000-word claim is exactly the type of specific improvement request that should lead to clarification, not deletion. Adding [which?] tags or requesting specifics on the talk page would be constructive.
    The MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT concerns are addressable through normal editing. These are among the most commonly fixed issues on Wikipedia and never grounds for deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP.
    I'm happy to work on addressing your legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. However, mixing real issues with fake policies and sarcastic commentary undermines productive discussion. EditorSage42 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly hallucinated AI generated text, next time if you want to use AI to generate something ask it to give you a paragraph stupid. No one actually starts listing things out when speaking whether formally or not. If the topic is notable enough, we can get a fresh start. There has been minimal effort exerted here Easternsahara (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara Easternsahara, your comment unfortunately demonstrates several misconceptions about Wikipedia standards while violating our behavioral guidelines.
Your claim that "no one actually starts listing things out when speaking" is demonstrably false. Academic presentations, technical documentation, and formal writing regularly employ structured formats. Wikipedia itself uses lists extensively - see any Featured List or the list sections in Featured Articles. MOS:LIST exists precisely because lists are often the most effective way to present certain information.
The phrase "ask it to give you a paragraph stupid" violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Personal attacks and derogatory language have no place in deletion discussions. Such behavior undermines your arguments and violates our fundamental principle of collaborative editing.
Your suggestion to "get a fresh start" if the topic is notable directly contradicts WP:PRESERVE and represents the worst kind of deletionism. If you acknowledge potential notability, the response should be improvement, not destruction. Deleting and recreating content wastes volunteer effort and destroys attribution history.
The claim of "minimal effort" is contradicted by the article's extensive citations and comprehensive coverage. WP:EFFORT isn't a deletion criterion - we judge articles by their content quality and adherence to policies, not speculation about creation methods.
Most concerning is your admitted prejudice against certain formatting choices rather than focusing on content accuracy and notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion rationale. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources including Nature, Science, and major news outlets - this should be the focus, not stylistic preferences.
I encourage you to reconsider your approach and engage constructively with content improvement rather than advocating for deletion based on formatting preferences and personal attacks. EditorSage42 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Nation

[edit]
Quantum Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK.

  • Sources 4, 5, and 6 do not mention the book at all (source 5 was published in 2022, before this book was published).
  • Source 10 is a WP:PRIMARY database entry of the book.
  • Sources 1, 3, 7, and 8 are non-notable WP:SPS promotional websites: "authorsofindia.com", "eeherald.com", "analyticsinsight.net", "quantumcomputingreport.com".
  • Source 9 appears to have WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues with the lack of byline and includes this strange disclaimer at the end: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team.
  • Source 2 is available here and is just a WP:TRIVIAL mention of the book. Astaire (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Physics, Computing, and India. Astaire (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree fully with the analysis of the article's current sourcing, and I didn't find any additional sources that could contribute towards WP:NBOOK after doing my own searches. MCE89 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not to mention challenges due to likely WP:COI. Vegantics (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fayroll

[edit]
Fayroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. I found only these two seemingly reliable sources ([1] and [2]), which doesn't seem to be enough. There is also a Forbes article, but it does the same as Sostav.ru. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nucle Saga I

[edit]
The Nucle Saga I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Sources 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are WP:PRIMARY sources - the book itself, the author's website, the author's YouTube channel, etc. Sources 1, 2, 6, and 9 are promotional articles - either an interview of the author or an article about the book launch. These are excluded under WP:BKCRIT #1: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Astaire (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satyaki Dwapar Ka Ajey Yodha

[edit]
Satyaki Dwapar Ka Ajey Yodha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. All sources in the article have WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues - overly promotional language, lack of bylines, text that is poor quality or AI-generated, etc. Astaire (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist Groups

[edit]
Extremist Groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a lengthy before check I found nothing. There is one review from Daniel Pipes in a source I believe we have declared unreliable so we cannot use that. Even if we could, that's only 1 review. The only other source I found is 1 sentence in a choice review for a different book that compares them, which also does not help, and lots of citations with 0 said about the work. This book had three editions under the same title with different authors and none seem to have gotten other reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Roller Coaster Ride!

[edit]
A Roller Coaster Ride! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Author and publisher are both non-notable. Source 1 is debatable whether it qualifies under NBOOK - a single paragraph with no commentary or opinion provided. Source 2 is a WP:UGC blog. Source 3 is an interview of the author, which is disqualified under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. A WP:BEFORE search found a couple of trivial mentions [3] [4] and another interview of the author [5], but nothing that counts toward notability. Astaire (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hind-Pak Bordernama

[edit]
Hind-Pak Bordernama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Author and publisher are both non-notable. The two sources in the article [6] [7] are both largely interviews of the author, which are excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The only other source I found during WP:BEFORE is this brief article [8] which just says that the book was "widely acclaimed". Astaire (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Lair (book)

[edit]
Wolf's Lair (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline failure of WP:NBOOK. The author and publisher are both non-notable. There are three sources in the article and I could not find more during WP:BEFORE. The second source [9] seems fine as an independent review. The first source [10] has a conflict of interest: the reviewer discloses at the end that he was a guest of honour at the launch event of Wolf’s Lair. The third source [11] is mainly a short interview of the author, which is excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Astaire (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams & Chaos (book)

[edit]
Dreams & Chaos (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author and publisher are both non-notable. Can't find any independent reviews of this book. The only sources available are those like [12] and [13] announcing the book's launch, which are excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Appears to have inspired a web series which may also be non-notable. Astaire (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God of the Sullied

[edit]
God of the Sullied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book, promotional article. Sources are press releases, paid for spam articles. See also:

  • Delete. Sources 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not WP:SIGCOV of the book itself, but some other topic (the author's publishing house, the author's other books, etc.). Sources 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (same source as 4) are overly positive and promotional reviews with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. Source 2 is a broken link that I can't access through the Internet Archive. I can't find any proof of Source 11's existence. That leaves Source 8, which requires payment to view and wouldn't satisfy WP:NBOOK by itself anyway. Astaire (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Are the Days (novel)

[edit]
Gone Are the Days (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Sources are poor to unreliable, primary PR links by Wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

The Indian Story of an Author

[edit]
The Indian Story of an Author (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian Express is an interview, and rest two are promotional articles by wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

Long Live the Sullied

[edit]
Long Live the Sullied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book, promotion/ advertisement. Fails GNG, NBOOK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Whimsical Lover. Zuck28 (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 2 has no reviewer byline, which WP:NEWSORGINDIA highlights as a cause for concern: use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer. This is especially true for people, companies and entities of borderline notability, which is the case here.
  • Source 3 is from the same website and also about the book's prequel, not the book itself.
  • Source 4 is the same website that I discarded over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief for being overly promotional.
I haven't examined the first source in detail, but even with only one good source, it would fail WP:NBOOK anyway. Astaire (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Whimsical Lover

[edit]
Diary of a Whimsical Lover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief. Zuck28 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first reference is a broken link, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive.
  • The second and fourth references have the same issues that I raised over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief - lack of a reviewer byline and overly promotional content, respectively.
  • The third reference is a brief three-sentence plot summary without expressing any opinion on the book. Doesn't qualify for criterion #1 of WP:BKCRIT.
Astaire (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Countless Grief

[edit]
Beyond Countless Grief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. No sources except two poorly written press releases/non-bylined promotional pieces and an unreliable dead link. Possibly a case of COI/UPE. User: Bond111 and their alternative account user:Dial911 were heavily involved in the creation and editing of the articles related to the author Gaurav Sharma (author) and his non-notable books. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Worldwar characters

[edit]
List of Worldwar characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources on this article, it seems redundant with the main Worldwar series article, and the content of it seems overly detailed and un-encyclopedic. It reads like something that belongs on Fandom at best. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximum Ride characters

[edit]
List of Maximum Ride characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No references to reliable secondary sources. The 1 reference the article has currently is a primary source to a list of books. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons for deletion can be addressed with edits to remove unsourced information for-depth analysis while retaining character descriptions, etc. cited from the novels themselves. The series features a wide array of characters organized into multiple groups and I think it makes sense to keep as its own article as opposed to merging into the Characters section of the main article. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly valid split-out article, too large to fit in the main article. The series is now 11 novels, with manga and comic book adaptations, and a film. Best to just have all the characters in one place, than have the same information filling up all these different articles. Dream Focus 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like sources discuss the characters as a group, which is needed per Wikipedia:LISTN. Many of these characters can be covered at Maximum Ride, or at individual books, depending on the status of each character as recurring or not. Unless some good coverage of the characters as a whole can be found, this list firmly does not meet the Wikipedia:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. I don't see the sources to support an encyclopedia article, per WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would accept a selective merge as a compromise. The main article is only 20k, and a slight expansion of the character list wouldn't tip the scales. (Nor would a complete merge, but I'd advise against it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Maximum Ride#Characters. It's always the question if a collection of fiction can be notable without the characters. In a non-exhaustive search, a number of the news sources I've seen do comment on the characters as a group, but rather briefly. The more interesting-looking sources from the Google Scholar search I cannot access, unfortunately. So considering the volume of commentary currently available to me, I am fine with a merge. I think, however, that this is strongly preferable to deletion or a pure redirect. Just compare as an example that the Maximum Ride article suddenly comments on Total's character, who appears out of nowhere, no other mention. So a merge would make this more well-rounded. If someone has access to more sources I'd be happy to hear about them. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Latif and his message

[edit]
Shah Latif and his message (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is mentioned in two English sources but not quite enough to be significant. Attempted to search in Sindhi but didn't have much luck. If more coverage does not exist, I would suggest redirecting to author G. M. Syed, but the title is incorrectly capitalized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very well known topic Shaahaajaahaan (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC) — Shaahaajaahaan (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Aniruddhchaudhuy (talk · contribs). [reply]
@Shaahaajaahaan That isn't a notability guideline, and no, this book isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more voices here on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Mohapatra

[edit]
Hemant Mohapatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability independently backed up with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1301799248"