Points of interest related to Literature on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive 2

Leadstart

Leadstart (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 and WP:NCORP. References are all about the books, not the publisher. Others fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and are sponsored references (which is what brought me to the page to begin with). CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sponsored articles are not reliable at all WP:SPONSORED. Grabup (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration (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)

the article seems to be promotional in nature, with it's only two references being from the publisher of the book, and the other being a website about the book. the articles creator has only only one edit, with it being the creation of this article. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have been unable to find any kind of coverage or reviews on either this book or the series it is a part of, meaning it would appear to fail WP:NBOOK. Even the section for reviews on the official site for the series only lists user reviews from places like Amazon and Goodreads, making me doubt that it got any coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK and frankly this article reads very promotional, especially that section about the educational value of the book Claire 26 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Cyber-Space

The Law of Cyber-Space (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 inherent claim of notability and filled with unsourced original research. Any verifiable information could be a simple mention within Ahmad Kamal. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World of Watches characters

List of World of Watches 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)

Zero references, written completely in-universe, no indication of notability. Hard to look up any sources, as most results of "world of watches" concern the timepiece, but even a search with author name Lukyanenko bring up very little. Suitable for a dedicated fansite or Fandom wiki. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Film, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE didn't reveal enough for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English grammars and grammarians

List of English grammars and grammarians (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)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the concerns regarding the deletion nomination of the "List of English Grammars and Grammarians" under the grounds of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. Here are several reasons why this article should be retained:

• Educational and Historical Value: This list provides significant educational and historical insights into the development of English grammar and grammars. Each entry represents an essential piece of the historical evolution of the English language and its teaching. This makes the list a valuable resource for students, educators, and researchers.
• Links to Biographical Articles: Many entries are linked to existing Wikipedia articles about notable grammarians, enhancing the list's value by providing context and further reading. These links show the list’s role in connecting and organizing information within Wikipedia, enriching users' learning experiences.
• Support for Broader Articles: The list is linked from the "History of English Grammars" article, serving as a resource that supports broader discussions about the subject. This interconnection helps other articles to reference a centralized resource, maintaining focus and avoiding redundancy.
• Consistency with Wikipedia’s Guidelines: While Wikipedia is not a directory, it values lists that provide educational content and context. This list offers a curated overview of significant works and authors in the field of English grammar, making it more than just a simple enumeration.
• Potential for Expansion and Improvement: Rather than deletion, this list could be improved by adding secondary sources that discuss the impact and historical importance of the works and authors listed. Enhancements could include more detailed descriptions and historical contexts.

--Brett (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the list comes from here. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern is that the lead states This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond. However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as Not worth a pin, A miserable jumble, and This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary derives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a list copied indiscriminately from an antiquated book. Reproducing a public domain catalog could serve as a prime example for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The absence of modern contextualization and the preponderance of entries lacking wikilinks causes it to fail WP:NLIST by not fulfilling "informational, naviation, or development purposes". Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Schazjmd. The same issue has come up with a handful of redirects derived from titles and the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water

Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water (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)

PROD was contested in 2011, but there have been no meaningful changes to the article since then besides the addition of a book cover image. WP:BEFORE provides no direct information on the book besides a few advertisements and passing mentions, and some extremely brief quotations or citations in works that describe the whole of H. G. Wells' career. The quotation it is "best known for" appears once in the literature relevant to it that I could find (which I do not have access to): [1] Reconrabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Reconrabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some fairly decent length reviews (coverage?) in The Daily Telegraph, The Hopewell News and NYT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, or Redirect to H. G. Wells bibliography, where it is mentioned. I find many google scholar hits that are likely related to the quotation mentioned in the nom's statement, but I don't think any of these are likely to show notability; I expect they're all just direct quotes or passing mentions. I do think this is plausibly notable, but what I'm finding (aside from the contemporary reviews noted above) are discussions of the contents of the book in service of biographies of Wells, rather than literary criticism (or whatever) in its own right. This article/redirect would probably be a good place to expand on some details of Wells's life that would be too much detail for his main article. Since, as the nom notes, no one has done that in more than a decade, I think a redirect is fine for now. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26421-5_24 has a couple of pages loosely related to the book starting around pg 382; this seems typical of the scholarly/biographical use of this book. I don't think it would be a good idea to write an article solely on the strength of the reviews found by ARandomName123. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As noted by asilvering, most of what I could find in regards to this work were quotes from it or references to it in service of demonstrating something about Wells' points of view. Another essay that quotes the book fairly often, though never making a direct discussion of the book, rather using it as example to talk about Wells: [2] does this confer the kind of coverage that could be used at all to discuss the book itself? It doesn't look like it to me. Also, Google brings up a one-sentence review in an unrelated article from 1940 in the Indian Express: [3] Reconrabbit 02:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Following the elucidation of sources from TWL and Newspapers.com I would like to withdraw this nomination. Currently I do not have the time-requirement to access the Library but will work on integrating these sources into the article once I gain access in a couple weeks. In the future I will refrain from making any further deletion proposals or nominations until after I have searched for and reviewed sources from TWL as this was a blind spot I didn't fully realize until now, especially in the non-natural sciences articles. Reconrabbit 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reconrabbit: I was planning to add them in once this AfD is concluded, so I can do it later today. If you want, I can email you images of TWL sources. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ARandomName123: If you think it would be beneficial to email me images of your sources, I would appreciate it. Though, if there're still issues with the article in a month, I'll be able to check myself and make any of the requisite improvements from the library, so it may not be worth your effort. Reconrabbit 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK via the sources from ARandomName123 and these additional newspaper sources: [4], [5], [6]. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Books

Commodore Books (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:NORG. Found mentions, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chutnification

Chutnification (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 don't think this topic is notable enough to have it's own page but the information would be useful as a small section in Midnight's Children. Perhaps under style or reception. (I hope this is the right way to go about this) Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Hall (The Wind in the Willows)

Toad Hall (The Wind in the Willows) (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)

A fictional house that doesn't seem to have much in terms of actual coverage. I'd suggest a redirect to The Wind in the Willows. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has your BEFORE search looked at the Google Scholar results? I see several that mention Toad Hall--what's your thought on if any of them constitute SIGCOV? Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them seem to be passing mentions about its role in the book. Some may be promising, but I can't access them and thus can't determine their potential aid in notability. This book has some good stuff on Toad Hall, as does this one, but the rest of it I can't properly gauge. I may have missed things cause there is way more analysis on this book than I expected, but I don't think there's enough right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the two links that you posted both go to the same book. What's the second one? The coverage in Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows:A Children's Classic at 100 does seem pretty extensive. Toughpigs (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - puzzled by this nomination. It is a highly notable fictional house, as I think is already demonstrated by the current coverage. I am quite certain more could be added. What is the policy argument for deletion? Is there one? KJP1 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Have added some text, cites and four more book/journal sources, including the one mentioned above, which discuss the hall, and its meaning, in detail. Plenty more can easily be identified. KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources. In particular, there is coverage, cited on the page, of various forms of dispute and chatter about which real building might have inspired the fictional one. Such source material is mostly lighthearted, but that does not reduce the significance of coverage for our purposes of determining notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. The fictional location has been reproduced in numerous media. Compare Wayne Manor, Sanctum Sanctorum (Marvel Comics). BD2412 T 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of KJP1's excellent additions, per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a terrific article, with good images and good sourcing. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baumoff Explosive

The Baumoff Explosive (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 refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it is correct that the article is lacking sources, I believe the topic is notable: The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, p. 514, and Science-fiction, the Early Years, p. 367, each have a paragraph dealing with the story. This PhD thesis has more, distributed throughout. Icons of Horror and the Supernatural, p. 79, also has commentary, but I cannot see the extent. Together that's enough to support a reasonable article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Äther - Ein Medium der Moderne, pp. 213-215, has two full pages discussing the story, but focussing on Hodgson's use of the titular Äther = ether in it. Daranios (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, (note this was an edit-conflict with the above opinion, but I'm posting it unchanged): this is an awkward one. (1) the bar for notability of fiction is a very lopsided one; modern fiction can be assessed on the basis of independent reviews, but there wasn't so much reviewing back in 1919, and anything that got written about it back then will be hard to find. This problem is noted at WP:OLDBOOK. There, we're urged to use common sense, and consider the number of times the book has been reprinted. Since this 1919 story is still readily available more than a century later, I'd say there's a reasonable case that it has contributed to the history of literature and is notable in wikipedia terms. But (2) Hodgson's work is covered here in a weird way. We also have List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which presumably exists to avoid William Hope Hodgson becoming too long. Many of the related series that he wrote have their own separate lists. (3) Overall, I'm in favour of keeping plot-summaries of his short stories somewhere, but I don't care whether this article, which is basically a plot summary, is kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which already contains plot-summaries of similar length for some other stories. My main worry about the merge option is that someone will then find the list-of-stories, be horrified by its length, and nominate it for deletion based on its lack of secondary sourcing. But the plot summaries themselves are fundamentally useful to readers, and verifiable. Elemimele (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the sources given above and the comment explaining, is likely ok. No issues if we merge either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Is What You Can Get Away With

Reality Is What You Can Get Away With (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)

A wp:before reveals no independent sources. There is a couple of comments on the talk page that says as much. Fails notability criteria as not having been significantly discussed in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, EVENTCRIT, and BKCRIT. I Prodded this at the end of May 2023 [7] – and it was declined. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the two references in the article are one-line-passing-mentions. Also, it is not likely that the first reference [8] would be considered a reliable source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reviewed in Danville Register and Bee, Austin American-Statesman and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Last one is a bit short, but three is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Danville Register and Bee is passing mention, not significant coverage. The Austin American Statement and the St. Louis paper do not discuss the topic in detail. These are not sufficient for NBOOK. These sources prove that this book exists. Based on these I can recommend merge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Winnett, Scott (April 1992). "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With". Locus. No. 375. p. 53.

     The review is listed here, here, and here.

  2. "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With". Science Fiction Chronicle. May 1992. p. 30.

     The review is listed here and here.

  3. Point, Michael (1992-05-31). "Two works take tours of alternate worlds, virtual and screenplay". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review provides 277 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "After a uniformly hilarious introduction, wherein a futuristic professor attempts to explain the culture of our time, Wilson uses illustrations that mix movie characters and scenes in new configurations to provide a challenging but consistently amusing story line that paints contemporary society with bold strokes of black humor. ... It's a quick read but one that holds up well with repeated readings as the different connections and relationships between the images unveil new meanings each time around."

  4. Bolhafner, J. Stephen (1992-06-14). "A Screenplay For The Mind". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The cover calls Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With" (130 pages, Dell, $13 paperback) an "illustrated screenplay." Unlike most published screenplays, however, this one is intended not for the movie theater, but for the mind's own screen. Although there is nothing downright unproducible about Wilson's script, one imagines that it was never seriously intended to be filmed, but to be presented as published, with enough pictures — nearly one per page to let the viewer imagine the visuals. Indeed, imagination is one of its major themes. Many readers know Wilson from the "Illuminatus!" trilogy he wrote with Robert Shea in the early '70s. This work is just as outrageously funny, and if not quite as paranoid, at least as cynical. Yet, it is ultimately a polemical work, with a message that is quite simple yet apparently hard for most people to follow: "Think for yourself!""

  5. Martin, D. R. (1992-08-09). "Science Fiction". The Commercial Appeal. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review provides 134 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If you want a good jolt, go to the bookstore and grab a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's Reality Is What You Can Get Away With (Dell, paperback, $13). It's a book that makes no sense at all, and more sense than anything you're likely to have read in years. It zings you, zaps you, sticks it to you. Wilson has concocted a "screenplay" written in the late 20th Century that has been rediscovered by scholars in a distant future. The "screenplay" is an anarchic minstrel show; a cavalcade of the tragicomic absurdities of "saying that which is not so." Wilson nails our society-in-denial right between the eyes. Possibly, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With is not even science fiction. But I treasure its hallucinatory, intoxicatingly nonlinear perspective on our dangerous times."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reality Is What You Can Get Away With to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cunard's sources work for me. Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more evaluations of the newly located sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

Open Book Collective (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)

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurealis Award for Best Fantasy Short Story

Aurealis Award for Best Fantasy Short Story (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 matter how much I like this this article, WP:ARTN applies. It lacks independent sources and seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. If we cannot find better sources, I feel this may need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there are enough secondary sources independent of the awards themselves in the reference list of this article to show notability of this award. I have also found plenty more independent refs.LPascal (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I have already voted Keep but have just edited the article with one sentence and more references to show that the award is acknowledged and respected by the publishing industry and reviewers and listed on various genre databases. I don't think this article should be deleted by itself but should be considered in the context of all the Aurealis award articles. The short story award is just one category but there are other Aurealis award articles for other award categories such as novels. So there is an alternative to merge them all into one article for the Aurealis Award but with sections for the different award categories.LPascal (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on merging into a parent article, as suggested above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It does not make sense to me to merge into the parent article. It would become a massive article with listing all the award winners. Is there a reason this particular Aurealis Award was nominated and not the other awards? Tbennert (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daraja Press

Daraja Press (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 independent sources about the publisher. Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the article now meets the standards required to not be deleted. Grantennis (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article now? Please advise if more sources are needed. Grantennis (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three independent sources about the publisher: AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com.

Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/.

Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64q7S7IB-A.

Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22Daraja+Press%22

Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search?query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check now Grantennis (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to convert the article into "List of books published by Daraja Press", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria. The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded. What benefit to you think having a separate article has? IgelRM (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this IgelRM. This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world. At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives. Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia? Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the "sources" are going to be quite different. Do you see where I'm coming from? Eager to know your thoughts. Grantennis (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important. IgelRM (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question - "What benefit to you think having a separate article has?". The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented. Would it be helpful to add sources to that point? Like:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes . These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves. They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes. Grantennis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources. A "List of books published by Daraja Press" might be better as a category. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of sources now Grantennis (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NORG. I see only one source that might come close to meeting NORG requirements, [9]. Not enough. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many high quality sources on the article. It's not clear what your referring to. This is normal news-coverage for a publisher. Grantennis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grantennis, high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions. It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites. Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage? Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article currently presents 33 sources, some of which are academic, such as Google Scholar. The user @Grantennis seems committed to updating and maintaining the article in accordance with the project guidelines, I believe that the deletion in this case would not be applicable. Svartner (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the sources. Only one of them even comes close to the requirements of WP:NORG. The "Google Scholar" source is a search results page, and doesn't help the notability case (WP:GHITS). Some of the books published by the press may meet WP:NBOOK, but that doesn't make the press notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a source assessment. Sources beyond these are all for individual publications of the press, so as I've said they don't matter for notability purposes. Jfire (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023)	"With permission from Daraja Press"			✘ No
Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022)			Founder is quoted	✘ No
Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021)	~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member			~ Partial
CL (October 28, 2020)				✘ No
Repeat of #1				? Unknown
AELAQ	Subject-provided copy			✘ No
Fallon, Helen (2019)			Mention	✘ No
Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018)			Mention	✘ No
Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020)		WP:COUNTERPUNCH	Mention	✘ No
Amazon.com				✘ No
Google Scholar				✘ No
RPA (5 September 2020)			Member in list	✘ No
AELAQ (14 February 2012)			Member in list	✘ No
RBC			Member in list	✘ No
LPG			Member in list	✘ No
MRO	Self-published			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Killing of Laban

Killing of Laban (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)

Article recently created by disclosed paid editors from BYU. Despite the extensive references, most scholarship on the Book of Mormon is conducted by Mormons so whether WP:INDY sourcing requirement is met is unclear. For example, Catholicism and Judaism, among others, have produced vast bodies of scholarship on the details of their own religion, but only the clearly notable topics of Catholic canon law or Jewish exegetical literature are summarized here for the non-specialist reader.

While a proposed merge to First Nephi would also have been a reasonable course, I believe a full AfD is more likely to attract more independent comments and form a clearer community consensus. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Latter Day Saints. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, there are some questionable sources. Irreantum is the publication for the Association for Mormon Letters, and it is not peer-reviewed. However, it is a literary journal, and it is used as a source just in the "Literary and artistic representations" section. That seems like an appropriate use of the source--for the existence of literature about the killing of Laban. Similarly, seeing The Ensign as a source gives me pause, but the text of the Wikipedia article attributes the author as an LDS apostle in-text. Full disclosure: My friend and expert in Book of Mormon studies created this page at my encouragement (so, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote in this discussion; if that's the case, consider this a comment). I would like to hear what other Wikipedians think! We need to develop more consensus about sources for LDS topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is part of a broader discussion within the LDS wikispace pertaining to sources, contributions by individual editors, etc. As it stands, the article appears to have the following sources:
  • #1 through #7 - referencing the BOM directly. These are WP:PRIMARY references.
  • #8 - summary of the topic in a section of a scholarly book, no connection to the topic.
  • #9 - peer-reviewed article on the topic from an academic journal published by University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. Part of the broader sourcing discussion.
  • #10 - article on the subject from an independent journal in the space. No other concerns.
  • #11 -article that references the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
  • #12 - book referencing the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
  • #13 - book of mormon textbook published by the LDS Church. This is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.
  • #14 - church magazine article published by the LDS Church. Similarly not independent.
  • #15 - book published by the Maxwell Institute. Part of the broader discussion.
  • #16 - church magazine article, see #14
  • #17 - same publication as #9
  • #18 through #22 - references to the subject published in the Irreantum newsletter published by the Association of Mormon Letters. Part of the broader discussion, exact status still in debate.
  • #23 - BYU address given by LDS apostle. Not independent.
  • #24 - article referring to the subject from an independent journal. No other concerns.

In summary, this article has references that fall into three categories - primary sources and those closely associated with the LDS church, references that have some connection with the LDS community and are part of a broader discussion in regards to their position on Wikipedia, and independent sources that have no connection to the LDS church outside of this topic. In my view, there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that references and articles are used and written in a WP:NPOV and independent manner. However, references such as #10, 11, 12, and #24 are indicative of this part of the Book of Mormon being a scholarly important part of the broader narrative. These are examples of various authors using the Book of Mormon narrative as a primary source to help draw conclusions related to their various secondary conclusions, allowing Wikipedia to draw tertiary summaries from these articles. Could this article use additional rewrite? Absolutely. But it does not need to be deleted, at least as far as these sources are concerned. Rollidan (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article is kept, it should be subject to heavy cleanup tags and extensive trimming. Lots of issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY, and by extension, WP:NPOV. On the other hand, the idea of the Killing of Laban providing justification for later Blood Atonement is interesting, could counterbalance the prevailing pro-LDS POV, and could provide justification for the notability of the article as a whole. Those thoughts should remain and perhaps even be expanded if possible. Trevdna (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge, as Trevdna notes the stuff about Blood Atonement is interesting and should probably be expanded upon if possible... However I think that should happen at Blood Atonement not here, other parts could go other places. I don't think that we have enough significant coverage of the topic in independent RS... Rollidan does a decent job addressing independence, but they stop there and don't examine whether or not the coverage is significant. I'm just not seeing it/ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point. Changing my comment vote to a Delete/merge vote as well. Blood atonement#Historical and doctrinal background seems a handy place for this information, which can be covered there quite nicely. Mormonism and violence is another obvious candidate location. Other than that, there's nothing really notable in this article from an independent standpoint. Trevdna (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, "Delete/Merge" makes no sense. An editor can't merge a deleted article. So, instead say "Merge/Delete" if that's the point you want to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to First Nephi - also make sure that the sources that are retained into the target article are, wherever possible, not sourced back to the LDS church's in-house publications to establish the notability of this religious story. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Liz: Delete/merge means that I support either deleting or merging the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, seriously? I didn't pick that up that there is a missing "or". I took it as sequential, like Delete, then Merge. Well, now I know, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one of those things where if we were talking IRL the cues would have have been tonal but written it is ambiguous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge to either of the suggested targets. This article is in bad need of wp:tnt and seemingly no critical sources could be found. It reads like a Sunday school lesson, not a generally notable topic. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]