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

Blaggard's Moon

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

Per WP:NBOOK. I found absolutely no RS coverage. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalayna Price

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

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [1], 5 [2], 6 [3], and 7 [4] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [5]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth. Only source i found is the Dainik bhaskar, which is actually not about the book and it is about the launch of book (as it is about chief minister so it got some attention). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source 1 is the book itself. Sources 2 and 3 no longer work and the Internet Archive is just showing blank pages and broken images. Nothing to indicate notability. Astaire (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine Archetypes of Ancient Drama in the Allegories of the Modern World

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Such an analysis belongs on a blog or (if it is better) in a scholarly journal. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Theatre, History, and Sexuality and gender. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the subject is probably notable, but this is a two-day-old article by a new editor, who is probably a subject-expert but with no experience in Wikipedia's policies and styles. It has sources, but they've been incorrectly formatted so it's impossible to tell which statements are backed-up by which sources (and this is one of the major problems in assessing notability; we need to know who's written about the subject, and what they said). It would be sensible to give the editor who created it time to sort out the referencing errors, remove their own personal connection from the article (Wikipedia articles don't have named authors) and get the article into shape. I'd strongly recommend that the original creator put it through the AfC process (articles for creation) as AfC will provide feedback on all the wikipedia-specific intricacies of creating an article, which is non-trivially different to general academic writing. Elemimele (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Many of the references appear to be primary sources, and a lot of what is written appears to be WP:OR based on the editor's reading of the primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations, you are absolutely right in what you are telling me. In this context, I recognize my mistakes. I recently registered as a user-editor on Wikipedia—it is a very attractive and culturally emblematic space. Naturally, I am not yet familiar with Wikipedia’s specific editing rules, but I am starting to understand them. As for my article, it is original—I am an essayist, and it is difficult for me to avoid writing in a subjective manner. I will try to "fix it." Sending good thoughts and wishing you all the best! Graziella Popescu (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak draftify Like Elemimele states it's probably a notable topic, and I'm generally very against draftifying notable topics, but in this case it might be prudent as it's really not built like how a Wikipedia article should be. With some help the creator might be able to fix those issues tho.★Trekker (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is appropriate for a comparative literature PhD dissertation, not an encyclopedia. I disagree that "feminine archetypes of ancient drama in the allegories of the modern world" is "probably a notable topic". It is hyper-specific and none of the academic sources cited in the article obviously support its notability. Any relevant analyses of individual works (e.g. La Cantatrice Chauve) should go in the article for that work, if they are DUE. Astaire (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ariful Qur'an

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

This article has been tagged for original research, unreliable sources, and unverified content since 2018. Although I have attempted to address these concerns, the article remains poorly sourced and lacks sufficient content to stand as a standalone page. I propose a redirect.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farooq (book)

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

I removed some unverified and unsourced content from the page. It was already a stub, and now it's even shorter. Deletion seems to be the most appropriate option.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references on the Uzbek wiki (uz:Al-faruq) that look promising, but I can only access this one. ~~I've added some context. It could be notable; I lean towards keep.~~ I realized that those sources are considered unreliable by the nominator who removed them recently. Would be useful to know why they are unreliable, but I trust your judgment since I can't read them. Recon rabbit 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: I initially added the sources while working on the Bibliography of Shibli Nomani. Although they are reliable, they are not directly relevant to the text, which is why I chose to remove them. However, if you find them useful, you're welcome to incorporate them. There is no shortage of credible sources available online. The primary concern is that, in its current state, this article does not meet the standards required for a standalone entry.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source from the Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities dedicates about two pages to this book, which led me to believe it was worthwhile to use it. If it does not meet the standards for an article on a book, it could be redirected back to Shibli Nomani until someone compiles more substantial information. Recon rabbit 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mochan (novel)

(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 recently 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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running from the Dreamland, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) for previous discussion of this author's books.

I believe this novel, like the others, fails WP:NBOOK. Full source review in the comments below. Astaire (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewing the sources currently in the article:
- Source 1: A review with over-the-top praise but little critical analysis: Receiving a degree in English literature was just the beginning for him. Acharya’s appetite for more knowledge only amplified, and he joined Kennesaw State University to pursue an MA in creative writing... I think a novel of this stature must be read all over the world. Highly suspect.
- Source 2 and Source 3 are links to the publisher's website. Not independent.
- Source 4: An article by the author himself. Not independent.
- Source 5 and Source 7 are articles about events the author held to promote the book. They fail WP:NBOOK criterion #1: 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.
- Source 6 and Source 10: The same review hosted on two different web portals, "OSNepal" and "Arthik Awaj". In both cases, published without a byline. Doesn't seem reliable to me and would only count as one review anyway for the purposes of WP:NBOOK.
- Source 8: A review on what appears to be a literature blog. Not reliable per WP:SPS.
- Source 9: A review published in the newspaper República. In the AFD discussion for Running from the Dreamland, one of the reviews of that book was also from República, and the review's author appeared to have a personal connection with the book's author. I would suggest not treating this source as reliable for reviews for that reason.

Astaire (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per your reasons. An editor from Mars (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This book fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Above all mentioned in nomination by Astaire (talk) , i would like to add 2 things here. First, This particular Article has 2 sources as book reviews in reliable media ( Kathmandu Post -Source 1: and Republica - Source 9:), but both these reviews are written in similar tone which praises author from beginning of the article, clearly doubts neutrality of the authors. Rest of sources are either ordinarily media or primary sources. Secondly, Author of this book and hiss other 4 books Wikipedia articles were recently deleted in Afd for the similar reasons.Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafasir Al Quran

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

This is not a work authored by Mulla Sadra. The book was published later by someone who compiled various aspects of Mulla Sadra's writings. In this case, I find no notability for the book under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran

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

Another book that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assuming you checked for any sources- either way, establishes no notability. Keep, sources found by other people are sufficient. Changing my vote. (I am User:Acer-the-Protogen. My device broke and I am logged out.) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [6] didn't check too much but that's a lot of hits. Please do before checks. Significant as the only work of its kind for quite a while [7] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually finding some content that talks about how this book was a pioneer in the realm of Arabic/English translation of the Quran. It's not super heavily covered, but it is considered to be superlative in its field. There is some question about whether or not the author is independently notable of the book, but I think the sources there give enough to suggest that he's likely independently notable. If by some chance he were to be considered non-notable, I would recommend that his article get merged and redirected to this book's page. The book has gained more general coverage (as far as I can see so far) and would be the more likely search target if anyone came here looking for information about him. But like I said, I think that he's probably independently notable enough.

I'm going to see what else I can find, but offhand I'm leaning towards a keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding reference to Penrice and the book in this text by Ibn Warraq, but I can't get a good look at everything in the book to see to what extent. I'm particularly interested in the text on page 249, as it looks like one of Penrice's translations in the book was the focus of some hubbub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's gotten some praise for his translations typically being correct, surprisingly sometimes when native Arabic speakers creating similar dictionaries were not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hard going, looking for sourcing for this. A lot of the coverage tends to be using the work as a reference. When Penrice's work is mentioned it's usually in regards to a specific translation of a word - which to me does show in-depth coverage but is kind of hard to really summarize on the article because I'm not really familiar with summarizing those types of things. The book has been referenced as a pioneer by one well-thought of scholar and cited as the first of its type by another.

Penrice really is only/predominantly known for this book so if this closes as a merge I'd recommend using this article as the main landing page. Normally I'd argue for the other way around, but I see more potential for expansion on the book as opposed to about the author. We could probably summarize his article in an author section in this article. I think he is probably independently notable, but I can't be for certain. I have a feeling that a lot of the coverage of him as a person is likely in books and papers that aren't archived on the internet. For that matter, I do get the impression that there is likely more about the book that isn't on the internet as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in The Academy (ProQuest 1299670891), The Middle East Journal (JSTOR 4325007) and Journal of Semitic Studies (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Will (1905 book)

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Middle East. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you attempt a WP:BEFORE check? Because given the circumstances about who wrote this book I would be astonished if it wasn't notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be good to search in Urdu. As far as notability goes, per his bibliography page the guy was fairly prolific with his writings, publishing about 60-80 works that were eventually collected into 23 volumes. In my experience with religious writings, when someone puts out that much work the coverage tends to focus on the overall themes and styles in their writing rather than individual pieces. It's possible that there is coverage, so a search should be done, but I will say that so far I'm not pulling up much. A lot of it goes to SPS or are false positives.

Offhand my thought is to redirect to the bibliography page, where there's already a general overview of his writings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography. Barring there being sourcing in Urdu (original language of the work per the article), I just don't see where this specific work is independently notable from the author and his body of work. This figure was very prolific and as often tends to be the case with prolific religious figures, the work tends to be examined as a whole rather than in the individual parts so it's rare to see anything covered in enough individual depth to justify separate articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which shows that the book has much notability outwith of Rudolf Friedrich Kurz and therefore seems to be an unnecessary fork JMWt (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Mississippi, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure about the journal itself, but its translations have been reviewed abundantly, which to me demonstrates its notability. The version edited by J. N. B. Hewitt, Myrtis Jarrell has been reviewed in Ethnohistory (here), and the The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (here). There also seems to be a review in Anthropos (here), but the page is blank for some reason, even though highlighting it shows there is text. A different version, edited by Carla Kelly, and titled ON THE UPPER MISSOURI: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852 has been reviewed in Journal of the West (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a review for the translation could be considered a review for the journal. I suppose that a good question to ask here, however, is whether or not the journal really needs to be covered separately from its author. As far as I can tell, it looks like this is his big claim to fame, so the question here is this:

The author is pretty much best known for his journals. The book in question is his collected journals. Does this really need to be covered in two articles or can we do it adequately in one? Everything in the journal article appears to be in the article on the author, more or less. The only thing that's missing is the quote.

My personal thought is that we redirect this to the author's page. We flesh out the article and create a new section that is specifically for the translations and publication history of the journals. Basically, the life section covers the experiences and the new section would cover the more technical stuff like translations, publication history, and so on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [8], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [9]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "independent publishing" review by itself helps to bring this to the level of notability by secondary sources where I would !vote for a keep to weak keep. Dorrance doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and there level of verifiable notability is sufficient, though not deep nor wide. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While sourcing isn’t the strongest, I believe there's enough historical and ongoing relevance to justify keeping this article. The company has been around for over a century, and there’s independent coverage going back decades including mentions related to early 20th-century publishing and more recent discussions like the class action lawsuit. It may not be widely celebrated, but it’s clearly part of the self-publishing landscape and has been consistently visible. That longevity and traceable impact meet the basic notability standards under WP:ORG. Pridemanty (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Guru Nanak Through Pictures

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

Cited or listed a few times in books about Sikhism but little significant coverage. I found one review that I cannot really access but it seems a standard length academic journal review so that's one [10]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [11]. There may be more in whatever language this was originally published in but I was unable to find the original title. The source in the article mentions the book but doesn't mention what we are citing it for (that it was judged one of the best by the president - they're talking about an artist, not the book). This mentions the best thing again but is only one sentence [12] Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sikhism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phulan_Rani#Subject_matter or Delete. Fails to meet WP:NBOOK. No evidence if the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works. RangersRus (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions