Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,513,871 edits
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,513,871 edits
Line 13: Line 13:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My First Book Of Mormon Stories}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My First Book Of Mormon Stories}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_and_Diplomacy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cane_as_a_Weapon}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cane_as_a_Weapon}}

Revision as of 10:35, 15 November 2024

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

Halflife (Michalowski novel)

Halflife (Michalowski 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)

No sources cited since the articles creation in 2006 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EDAs, no non-fan sources anywhere. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. There's just no coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as reliable. The sheer volume of works that come out each year with the Doctor Who tie-in stories makes it very difficult for outlets to cover individual novels and stories. While that makes it awesome for fans (I'd love to see the Alien franchise put out more novels and stories like that, please!), it does mean that the stories and novels are unlikely to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Shipping Publications

Coastal Shipping Publications (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 Notability requirements for an organization as it lacks any good reliable coverage (See Wikipedia:Notability (Organisations and companies)) and the only sources in the article are from the website of the company itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Blue Fire

House of Blue Fire (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:GNG prod opposed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Temples In America

Mormon Temples In America (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. No independent reliable sources present, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book is published by Cedar Fort, Inc.. a notable publishing company.Msruzicka (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article about St. George Utah Temple under the picture state temple was announced 31 january 1871. A book abouut mormon temples called Mormon Temples In America says November 9 1871. The book is not an official book from the LDS but neither is the website where you got this iinforation in the article. Msruzicka (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • another interesting point almost all the Mormon Temple articles uses a website that is not connected to the LDS chuch in any way. And at times information from that site does not correspond with the official LDS site.Msruzicka (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A website that is featured on all temple articles is https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/st.-george-utah-temple/ This site clearly states it is not an official site of the LDS church. why is it featured on all temple articles then?Msruzicka (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the result of incompetent and/or uninformed editing. Summary description of community consensus for ChurchOfJesusChristTemples.org at WP:LDS/RS is as follows:

    The ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org is a self-published source and is not an official website of the LDS Church. It therefore does not qualify as a reliable source nor meets the special case usage for self-published sources.

    Left guide (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's one review of unclear independence and everything else is user-generated, self-published, and/or not about this book. At best being extremely generous for the sake of argument, there's only up to one qualifying source, and that's simply not enough to show notability here. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm removing the Goodreads mention - these are user generated reviews - I've given an explanation of this in some of the related AfDs. I've also removed the link to Altus Fine Art. That isn't a review of the book, as it's a general comment about the artist. It's also not independent enough to be considered something that could give notability for the artist, as it's a promotional blurb meant to encourage people to buy from the website. They aren't going to say negative things about someone whose work they're hoping to profit from. If they were an extremely notable art gallery or a museum this would be debatable, but they're not.
Now as far as the Boyack part goes, that's a book jacket blurb (BJB). BJBs are short quotes that are written to promote and sell a book. These people are approached by the publisher or author and asked to make a short 1-2 sentence statement about the book. It's not in-depth and it's specifically written to be promotional copy, so it's not considered to be a review. Some publishers even re-use the same blurbs over and over again on other books by the same author, sometimes even years down the line. While sure, this is the author's only book, the fact remains that BJBs aren't usable to establish notability because of their very nature. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers

The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers (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. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the star reviews are by people who read the book. The arthur Warnock seems to be a notable arthur. Book is sold at Brigham Young University book store. Warnock has won awards.checked google books searched the arthur Caleb Warnock. 16,900 results appeared.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews have been added.Msruzicka (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first 'review' (Utah Preppers) is a blog, not useful for establishing notability. The second is a copy of the third, an article by the Deseret News. All other sources are store pages. WP:NBOOK requires two or more independent reliable sources, which the article does not have. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BYU: This is not a review, this is a publisher's summary. Even if it wasn't, no retailer is going to tell you that one of their products is awful - they want you to buy the book. At most they might post someone else's review stating that it is bad, but they are going to be quick and clear to attribute it to that publication.
  2. Goodreads: User submitted reviews. You can read my explanation at this AfD as to why those aren't usable or even generally considered to be pertinent to Wikipedia.
  3. DBRL: User generated reviews, not issued by the site itself.
  4. Self-published blog: This runs the same issue as the user submitted reviews on retail and database websites. Anyone can create a blog and post a review. These are only usable if you can prove that the site has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other independent reliable sources, particularly academic and scholarly sources.
  5. Library site: User submitted reviews - these are actually the same reviews as posted at the DBRL, as they pull from the same database for that area.
  6. LDS Living: At the bottom of the page it lists that it took the review from the Deseret Times, so it's a duplicate of the DT review.
  7. Deseret Times: I'd be willing to say that this is usable. It's brief, but the paper is independent of the LDS and by extension, the author and publisher.
I've removed all of the sources but the blog post and the link to the Deseret Times. With the blog post, I suppose there's a chance that the site could be one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule - unlikely, but I'll leave it up there until someone researches that. As far as the other sources go, they were doing far more harm on the page than good. Unusable sources like those tend to make a page seem less notable rather than more, especially in the case of the sources that were accidentally misrepresented. I'm going to see if I can find any other sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My First Book Of Mormon Stories

My First Book Of Mormon Stories (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. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good reads indicates the book has sold more than 100,000 copies. The star reviews on those web sites are by people who read the book. If you look at the article the book has a sequel by the same arthur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Msruzicka book sales and sequels do not contribute towards establishing notability at all. Independent reliable sources do, and the article has none. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you suggesting if sources were computer generated that would be better than sources created by people.Msruzicka (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USERGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a bit surprised that no sources exist for this, as I remember selling more than a few copies of this back in the mid to late 2000s. However the issue here isn't whether or not this was ever popular and whether or not there have been any reviews or coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable and independent/secondary. What we need are things like reviews or articles about the book in like say, a newspaper like the Salt Lake Tribune. I checked Newspapers.com, but the only listings for this were advertisements where various stores were saying nice things about the book in order to entice customers to purchase it.
As far as the 'reviews' in the article go, none of them are usable. Here's a rundown:
  1. BYU: This is not a review. It is a publisher's summary of the book - you can find this summary on other websites selling the book, like Amazon.
  2. Cardston Bookshop: This is a review by a random user, not a review by the website itself.
  3. Goodreads: All user created reviews. Not pertinent to Wikipedia.
  4. Thrift Books: Also user created reviews, not a review by the website itself.
  5. The Mormon Literature and Creative Arts: This is questionable as to whether or not this could be seen as a review. It's labeled as a summary, so it's possible that this was an alternative publisher's summary. Now it does show that two people reviewed it for the Association for Mormon Letters, however even if that is considered to be independent and secondary enough, the issue would be that it's one publication - we would need reviews from multiple outlets, not the same one.
Now, going back to the issue with user generated content. The issue here is that anyone can create a review on sites like Goodreads, Amazon, and so on. If any limits exist, they're usually not much of a hurdle - Amazon might only require that you buy the book, for example. That lack of a hurdle makes it kind of a given that someone will post a review about a given product. If it exists, eventually a member of the general public will give their opinion. What makes a review from a media outlet like the Salt Lake Tribune or NYT special is because they have a limited amount of space and staff time to create a review. Countless books are released in any given genre each year - there's no way that these outlets can review all of those, so they have to be extremely discerning about which ones they review. The only time user created content is considered to be noteworthy is when it gains coverage in media outlets like the NYT and such. Examples of this would be Saving Christmas and Bend, Not Break, where there were attempts to create review campaigns to sway the public user ratings.
Aside from that, the page also uses wiki entries - these should never be used as a source because they're user created. There's little to no editorial oversight and anyone can create a page. The only time wikis are sourced within an article is if they are part of the topic at hand - even then it's expected that the source will be accompanied with secondary, independent reliable sources that would justify mentioning it within the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the user reviews, this isn't meant to be a knock against people who like to review books and other media in their spare time or a knock against those websites. Shoot, I used to be an extremely active reviewer on Goodreads, IMDb, and Amazon back in the day and even ran a book blog. (Side note: someone once tried to use a review I posted on my blog in an AfD - that was a surreal moment to say the least.) It's just that these are so common and expected that they aren't considered to be discerning enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something else of note: adding a ton of unreliable sources to an article doesn't make an article look more notable. In this situation it actually runs the serious risk of undermining any attempts at retaining it. With the case of the publisher summaries misinterpreted as reviews, there's the risk of it being seen as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the sources. I don't think that this is the case here, but it's how it can come across. It's far, far better to limit it to sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable and usable to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mattin

Mattin (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)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now). I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). I don't think this rises to notability at this time. He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

The Cane as a Weapon (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)

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.
    So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [1]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1257522978"