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

List of Maximum Ride characters

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: [1]. Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 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]

Thank You Hashem

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

This article was previously speedy deleted last year per WP:A7, and was recreated by the same editor this year mostly using AI generated text. Notability has not been demonstrated for this topic. MidnightMayhem 01:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Music, Organizations, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary recreation. Segaton (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Recreation of spam. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KnowDeath (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found two sources, but that's about where it all ran dry. This movement does have some traction, but so far it hasn't led to enough widespread, in-depth coverage to show where it passes GNG. Most of what I found were false positives, as I'd see something titled "Thank You Hashem", only to find that it was a general prayer piece that doesn't mention the movement. Given that the term is modeled after a general prayer statement, any sourcing used would have to very clearly mention the movement rather than a general gist. It's kind of like if a Lutheran or Catholic group started up a movement titled "And Also With You" or "And With Your Spirit".

This has somewhat more coverage than expected for what's ultimately a smaller movement, but it's still not enough to establish notability. To be honest, most grassroots movements and people are non-notable. They might be known or infamous, but never gain actual coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good example that's local to me would be Jeff Kelso. The guy is kind of infamous in some groups for how he protested the Vietnam War. He's even been covered in a couple of academic/scholarly books, but it's never really turned into enough coverage to justify an article. It's really pretty common. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (soft) as too soon - it's only been covered by blogs and similar sources of lower reliability. It just may take some time for secondary sources to cover this in any significant way. Bearian (talk)
Delete per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armies of Death

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

Could not find any sigcov. Redirect to Fighting Fantasy (the series it is in)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neither for nor against deletion because I know nothing about this subject, but I would not suggest a redirect to Fighting Fantasy because this subject is not mentioned in that article at all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the link is in that article or not, there is still obviously a need to bring it to AfD because the book is not notable.

I'll do it sometime later if someone doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the books are on the list article, List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which is stuck in the see also for some reason. So redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now meets the requirements following the reviews added by User:Guinness323. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reviews are reliable. The RSN discussion on Fantasy Book Review came to the conclusion it was unusuable for notability, the other is a blog and the other is one sentence of coverage in a listicle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As far as I can see, all the FF series have articles. It would make no sense for this to be the sole one that didn't. This needs wider discussion than just a single book. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp For the record, less than half do... so no. List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was looking at the wrong list. I'm neutral then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. None of the newly added sources are reliable, and my search of ProQuest/EBSCOhost/archive.org/Gbooks does not turn up anything providing significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks - The added sources are either not from reliable sources or are a trivial mention in a listicle. I have also not found any reviews or coverage in reliable sources in my own searches, which makes this a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Redirect to the main list of Fighting Fantasy titles, where is is already listed, is the only real WP:ATD here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Latif and his message

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:09, 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]

Redirect to G. M. Syed: Book did not meet notability guidelines, i will go with the redirect to it's author. Behappyyar (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Mohapatra

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 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]

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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

A list of appearances by Daleks in a specific media type. Having researched this topic extensively, there is no individual coverage of the Daleks in this type of media, and any coverage of the Daleks in it is purely plot summary information. As it stands this list is an WP:INSIDISCRIMINATE failure. I'd suggest a redirect as an AtD to Dalek. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 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) 07:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete Alert editors at https://tardis.wiki/ . This is somebody's hard work, they have just misunderstood the sourcing requirements here. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Star Books

AfDs for this article:

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

Three years have passed since a refund following a soft delete. This article still does not meet NCORP guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Companies, and Canada. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG pass. Discussed in multiple published works, including:

The Perilous Trade: Book Publishing in Canada, 1946-2006 (2012)
Publishing Lives: Interviews with Independent Book Publishers in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia (1996)
The Globe and Mail, "New Star Books to wind down, publisher cites BC Arts Council funding issues", 29 January 2025
Publishers Weekly, "Vancouver’s New Star Books Ceases Acquisitions", 29 January 2025
Quill and Quire, "New Star Books to close" 16 January 2025 (Quill & Quire)

More can likely be found in the depths of Newspapers.com. MediaKyle (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns:

PW and Q&Q are trade news, for which NCORP clarifies that a higher standard is needed to establish independent coverage.

The GM article is primarily about the BC Arts Council.

Publishing Lives, as the title indicates, is a primary source with little commentary, whilst NCORP requires secondary sources.

There is something a little more substantial in the Perilous Trade, but out of the one to two pages, New Star is covered along with other publishers, and is not exclusively emphasised. Dege31 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PL, and TPT, are already included in the article. Dege31 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's a few more just for good measure:

A New Star is rising in publishing, The Vancouver Sun
Smaller publishers land on BC Book Prizes shortlist, The Vancouver Sun
Publishers still suffer Chapters fallout, The Vancouver Sun
Benefit to help New Star Books repair after firebombing, The Georgia Straight (there is also 4 other news articles covering the arson event cited in the article)

The publisher has been around for a long time, and not only been the subject of specific coverage on numerous occasions over the years, but was also written about in-depth in at least two books, which is not trivial. All of these things put together makes this a GNG pass. Besides all that, articles about notable publishers are of encyclopedic value. MediaKyle (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the two books- one is a primary source, the other one is on the edge of significant coverage. The first one is not an NCORP valid source. The second one maybe passes (I'll leave it to the discretion of others who will participate in the discussion), although it isn't exactly in-depth.

Writing about the arson is primarily something that gives notability to the event, not the publisher. A local incident, which is not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 2. Smaller publishers- brief mention of non-notable prize - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 3. Publishers still- two statistical sentences - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 1. A New Star is rising- this article is mostly about books published by New Star. This is points to the book's notability, and the corporation does not inherit this notability. The few paragraphs that are about New Star are either primary, or largely routine. In fact, I think this source might be an advertisement (sure looks like it, especially given its placement next to the section at the bottom) which would make it a fail of NCORP on multiple levels, but I don't at the moment have newspapers.com access.

My suggestion would be the creation of an article about Canadian small press publishing, where this subject would also be incorporated. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 6 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!} 23:31, 5 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) 23:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MediaKyle. While well-meaning, the criticisms are excessive. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm light novels

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

Same issue as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ascendance of a Bookworm chapters. Does not pass NLIST, and without the chapter names this would easily fit into the main article. Remove those and merge back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No need for a standalone list nor chapter titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there any more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Chapter titles is excessive detail in this case. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 5am Club

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

Fails WP:NBOOK as none of the sources look reliable. All I found in a search were a handful of the very questionable kind of sources you get with a lot of self help books that are questionable independence wise and don't provide any commentary, or are unreliable. I cannot find two reliable reviews. Redirect to Robin Sharma? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is coverage, but it's not about the book as much as it's about the concept of early rising. The book served as a jumping off point, but it's not really the focus of the article exactly. For example, this article in HK Vogue is more about the idea of waking up early with the book as an inspiration. This one from Health Digest does cover the book a bit more, but again it's about the practice not the book itself. Then there's this one by the Times of India which is made up of short bits over a series of images. Not really in-depth. I wasn't about to really look at this from Business Insider but it looks to be more like the Vogue and HD ones. This article by The National (Abu Dhabi) looks to be an actual review, but it's paywalled. I'm also not super familiar with this newspaper to know if it would be usable for reviews or not.

Offhand what I would recommend is that some of the content get selectively merged into the main article for the author and this redirect there. It would need some editing for tone/flow, of course. I might do it if I get the time, but if anyone else wants to do it go for it. I'm going to hold off to see if someone else can find sourcing, but again - offhand the sourcing isn't really about the book in the way that we expect sourcing to go. It's enough that it should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't know that it's enough for its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the reviews in Glamour and Vogue, both of which appear to be independent and reliable sources, as well as the additional reviews found by ReaderofthePack. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

neither the Glamour nor the Vogue pieces are reviews, or provide significant commentary on the book. They're about other topics and mention the book only briefly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:56, 5 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!} 03:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Also an article in the Irish Times [2] and the Times [3], I'd say we have notability. While not about the book, we have now at least four articles from three or four different countries talking about the concept of rising early inspired by the book. That shows a cultural impact more than simple book reviews can. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it's discussed in Pakistan as well [4], how much more cultural impact do you want? Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... my concern is that what coverage exists talks about it more as a concept than about the book itself. They aren't really discussing the book, if that makes sense, but rather Sharma's concept and the whole idea of "early to rise", which has been around for a while. For example, the Health Digest source does discuss the concept, but they also discuss it in relation to the general idea as a whole.

So in other words, it's not the book that's notable but rather Sharma's interpretation of "early to rise". The coverage for this is pretty light and does seem to kind of intermingle with Sharma's other stuff a little. I think that this could be pretty easily covered in his article, which is kind of in start class territory. You could have a section about this that goes into some detail without any actual issue, plus it could help take that article out of start class territory. Sure, we could probably have an article for the book separate, but I'll be honest in that I don't think that the book article will ever really have enough coverage to go beyond its current state. It could be cleaned up, but the coverage will likely always be weak and if we do have info in two places, it would likely just be a copy of what's in the book article, just somewhat reworded. In comparison, we could move this to the author's page and use that to strengthen his without duplicating the data. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Oaktree which shows GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions