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

The Sirah of the Prophet

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

I can't find evidence that this is a notable book, sources are blogs, shops, ... Nothing better seems to available through Google Books or News. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jnanpith award and Kannada

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

WP:NOPAGE. This article just serves to highlight the winners of the Jnanpith Award who wrote in Kannada. This information is already available at Jnanpith Award. Not a plausible redirect. Astaire (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Astaire (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for a separate article. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This can just be included in the main page. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Lee Flores

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much can be written about the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available information is his role for taking over the Kamuning Bakery. No information on the works that made him awarded the Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

See article's state (diff) prior to significant addition by a conflict of interest user Pandesalforum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For accountability, my last name is Flores, but I am not related to him. That said, I believe there is information out there about how he became an award-winning writer. I've also added info and sources on how he got 3 Palanca Awards.

The Catholic Church and Conversion

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

There do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [1] also [2] Contemporary reviews [3] [4]... there appears to be a lot more [5]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article only describes neutrally the content of the book, giving light about the author's central ideas. This is useful plainly to explain Chesterton's thought in his other works. I don't see how it would be reasonably necessary to show the aftermath of the book, or the possible flaws of his thinking in an encyclopedia article merely about one of his more personal autobiographical works, just to keep it in Wikipedia instead of deletion. Besides that, there are lots of neutral sources in various Chesterton biographies which will give more points of view. (Terot (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Well... if the book did have some sort of impact (negative or otherwise) then that would be something worth including in the article, as long as it was neutrally written and properly sourced. If it was something more discussed as an example then a long section about how people responded to Chesterton's work would be ill placed here - that would be a main article type of deal. But a sentence or two along the lines of "Historians and critics of his work saw it as an example of Chesterton's larger views on Catholicism... yadda yadda" would be fine.
I'll post on the article's talk page so that I don't derail the convo here too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the coverage provided above, it has also been reviewed in New Blackfriars (here) and The Furrow (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free play (Derrida)

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

Per WP:NOTDICT and not WP:Notable. Derrida was a philosopher and polymath with countless neologisms to his credit and many other unique connotations to existing expressions. A few of these, like Différance have broken out and achieved notability and have been studied on their own terms way beyond passing mentions and do deserve an article, but this is not one of them. In addition, the entire article consists of two Derrida quotations. Suggest transwikify content to q:Derrida and perhaps redirect the page to one of these:

but honestly I don't which one. There is also Event (philosophy), but Derrida is not mentioned there; maybe Phlsph7 could help out with this one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect I looked on Derrida and other than the link back to this article I don't see any mention of this concept even in the talk pages. If there is a meaningful difference between a neologism and a philosophical concept then I think this falls more in the latter camp. However, I would support redirecting this back to Derrida and if talk page consensus there suggests splitting it then it can be resurrected.

Czarking0 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no merge/redirect , A couple of quotations which do not explain what the heck "freeplay" is. It appears there are no backlinks to the article which are not from Derrida's templates. So no evidence from secondary sources of the importance of this concept, neither in the wider philosophy, nor in the "Derrida Universe". So I see no need to clutter Derrida's bio. --Altenmann >talk 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no transwiki to quote: no reason. Just as well you may transquote the whole book. Only for the quotes which some RS deemed notable it makes sense to transquote. --Altenmann >talk 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment: @Mathglot: thanks for the ping! I'm not sure how to best handle this type of case. It's not Derrida's most influential concept, but there are some secondary sources, like [6] and [7]. I don't know whether they are sufficient to justify have a separate article rather than including the discussion in a parent article on Derrida or Derrida's philosophy. Maybe in principle, one could make an argument for notability. However, the current content, consisting of a minimal explanation and two quotes, does not really justify a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside the whole framework, the current article pretty much incomprehensible. Extensive cherry-picked quotes are of no help, because Derrida's writings are not for feeble minds. --Altenmann >talk 08:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  A bit o/t, but I couldn't help adding that whenever I read (or try to read) Derrida (not very often), I can't decide if I have a feeble mind, or he does. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first paragraph into Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences and get rid of the gratuitous quotation. Not enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It might be better to merge it in the related place. 110 and 135 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Star in Sight

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

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete this meaningless word salad only sourced to in-bubble "sources" - what I would call "woo." (I note that there is nothing worth merging into those other two articles either.) - Roxy the dog 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources, both ones included and not included here, it is notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The primary Crowley sources are an issue as is the infamous Eye in the Triangle & Grant, but the other sources are reliable and not from believers, and there are more than that. Crowley has simply had a lot written about him, and an individual text is a discrete enough topic that it can have a defined scope. The coattrack issue is true but not the point of WP:TNT because it canjust be trimmed. I would say keep and just trim the stuff that is less about the text/puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did notice the part where, before starting this AfD I found multiple citations that failed verification, yeah? A citation being in the article is not an indication the citation even mentions the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more feedback needed, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mortensen

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

Fails WP:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete UPDATE: i have changed my vote to keep as sources have now been presented Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [8] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.
I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created aa significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:
The article is poorly written.
The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.
The article is of start/stub class length.
Offhand only one of those is a valid reason for deletion. Being a short article isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. An article can be an eternal stub and still be considered worthy of an article - it only has to pass notability requirements. Now a very short article can sometimes be merged into another, if there is an appropriate parent article, but this isn't the case here. As far as the sourcing issue goes, sourcing does not have to be present in the article to establish notability. It should absolutely be added, yes, but the sourcing only has to exist and be of suitable quality and type to establish notability.
Now the quality argument can be used as an argument for deletion, but this is only meant to be used in very extreme cases, where the article has so many issues that it would be easier to just delete it all and start fresh. These issues are typically things like promotional content and copyright violation, as well as a history of sockpuppetry. This article does need editing, but I wouldn't say that it's so problematic that it needs to be wiped clean from Wikipedia. It just needs some pruning. I also don't see an issue with copyvio and the article doesn't seem to have any issues with sockpuppetry either.
I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i haven't changed my vote yet. I was engaging in other afd discussions Scooby453w (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly agree with that. Articles for those are often kind of undersourced (even if they pass NBOOK) and are particularly prone to puffery. Honestly, a lot of times authors in this realm of things tend to kind of write about the same topics, but from different angles, so sometimes all that is needed is a general overview of what the author writes about. I also think that having an author page often discourages people from writing the individual book pages (and same for series pages and individual entries). People are sometimes just looking to see if it's on here and when it's not, that's when we sometimes get people coming on to create articles - sometimes with good intent, sometimes to promote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author passes notability guidelines as his works have been covered in multiple, independent, and secondary reliable sources. He'll never be anyone super mainstream, but he's received enough attention to pass NAUTHOR. Also, as stated above I think that having a page for him would be best here, as opposed to ones for his books. We can have a general overview and cover it all well enough there, as opposed to 2-3 individual and lackluster (but still passing NBOOK) entries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per ROTP and MCE, meets NAUTHOR Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not a fan of these self-help types of books, but if the subject's books are reviewed in reliable sources, then he's probably notable. The article has been improved two ways: deletion of BLP violations and trivia, and by added sources. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

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

I'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the English article by ChatGPT, though it has referenced enwiki material too. Also, please don't remind me of Wikipedia policies. I am aware of them. I try to use common sense. Taha (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Literature

Literature proposed deletions