Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

[edit]
Genocide in the Hebrew Bible (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)

Per prior discussion(s) on article talk (which have stalled out for several weeks), this article is essentially a largely OVERLAP’d POVFORK with serious neutrality issues. The discussion of this topic is already extensively covered and properly sourced in articles such as War in the Hebrew Bible, The Bible and violence, and Judaism and violence; as is the modern day relevance of particular passages in Amalek. The contents of these discussions are neither so long that they warrant SIZESPLIT, nor are they so notable as to require a page outside their discussions on the relevant pages. Sinclairian (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, and Judaism. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it wasn’t obvious, my vote lies on delete/merge. Sinclairian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All of this is covered on other articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I don't see an argument for deletion here. I see no evidence that the article is so rife with neutrality that WP:TNT is appropriate. Nobody has disputed notability, only where this material should be covered - which is not a matter for AfD, particularly when multiple plausible merge targets exist. AfD cannot replace normal talk page discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Vanamonde93 sums the situation up perfectly. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input (my emph., and again per V93, the neutrality concerns are insufficiently egregious (by spades) to qualify for the level of severity required to warrant deletion, especially when alternatives are available). Talk page discussion and possible merge/redirects do not take place at AfD. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the Bible and violence. I question whether this page scope is fundamentally a SYNTHetic premise. The word "genocide" isn't mentioned in anything as old as the bible, as that word dates to 1944. It's true that we could still have an article about a modern concept of this. But, should we, or would this be handled better elsewhere? I don't see enough detail or sources in depth about this specific topic to handle as a separate article, personally, so I'm ending up here. Andre🚐 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not WP:SYNTH if other people have already applied the modern concept of genocide to the stories told in the Hebrew Bible. That by itself doesn't mean that an article with this title is the best place to talk about the subject, of course, but the idea isn't original. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources, totaling hundreds of pages, that were cited in the original version of the article and have more than enough content to support an extensive article. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per vanamonde. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per vanamonde Codonified (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Republic Commando (series)

[edit]
Star Wars Republic Commando (series) (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. No significant coverage for this series or "multimedia project". Even if you see this as a list, it seems to fail WP:NLIST. Only thing I found were articles about a Battlefront 2 update adding a Republic Commando character to the multiplayer mode: [1], [2]. They don't imply that Battlefront 2 is part of the Republic Commando series. Suggesting merge/redirect to Star Wars: Republic Commando#Sequels. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: Republic Commando#Sequels per nom. ~ A412 talk! 18:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Tortuga (novel)

[edit]
Far Tortuga (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)

AI language model entirely generated the article. There is only one source, might be appropriate to move into Draftspace. Verified as 100% AI using gptzero. Marleeashton (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if changes aren't made. However if sufficient changes are, then Keep. Looks like a major improvement already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks better now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Awards

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Whitney Awards (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)

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2009-08 (closed as ✓ keep)
Related discussions: 2017-08 Traci Hunter Abramson (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: Lots of coverage in the Deseret News, and some in scholarly journals [4], and here, but this is more of a mention [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, all available sources such as Deseret News are LSD-affiliated (so "lots of coverage" over there do not count for notability). The journal link above is literally a sentence in a note. Nothing close to significant coverage in neutral secondary reliable sources. Cavarrone 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

[edit]


Ally Louks (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)

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)
All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?
It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.
I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
    • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
    • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
    • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.
    Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?
    I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.
    Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.
    Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.
    Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.
    Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)
    Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.
I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).
So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):
1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:
A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)
B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.
2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.
3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:
A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).
B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)
Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful...

[edit]
Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... (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)

This biography about a famous person is not notable enough on its own for an article. It's notable enough for a couple sentences on the subject's article at most. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm kind of torn. I have three reviews on the page, so it does pass NBOOK. However biographies are a bit of an odd duck in that it kind of has to satisfy two things: first it has to show notability. Once that's done, assuming the subject has an article, the article then has to show that it's more than just a rehash of the biography page. There are a handful of reviews, but I'm not pulling up that much. I've got the impression that there's likely more but it's not as strong as an impression as I'd like. I'm somewhat leaning towards keeping this, but I'd rather look for more sourcing so I'm going to refrain from making that an official stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There looks to be a review here, but I can't verify all of it. This is making me lean towards the thought that there's probably more out there. I'd just like to have more critique of the book, as that is going to be what helps this stand out from the main Mariott article. If we can find interviews about the book, even better. I think notability is established, but what I want to prove is that it would be able to stand on its own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a copy of the book Everybody Dance: Chic and the Politics of Disco here on Internet Archive. Both Everybody Dance and Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... were published by Helter Skelter Publishing so the book may not be sufficiently independent to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 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. "Reviews - Book of the Month 14.08.04". Music Week. 2004-08-14. ProQuest 232200055.

      The review notes: "A rich portrait of the man described by some as the greatest white soul singer of all. From paying his way through the Italia Conte drama school, through his time with The Small Faces - the first group to be banned from Top Of The Pops and who were deported from Australia at gunpoint - to relentlessly touring the States with Humble Pie in the 70s, money problems, latter solo days on the pub circuit and his tragic end in a house fire at 44, All Too Beautiful seeks to restore Marriott's importance in rock 'n' roll with considerable success."

    2. O'Reilly, Chris (2004-07-10). "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful By Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier Helter Skelter Publishing, £19.99". Evening Express. Factiva EVEEXP0020040713e07a0001p.

      The review notes: "This is the definitive account of the life of Small Faces and Humble pie frontman Marriott - the original Modfather who penned and sang such hits as All Or Nothing, Itchycoo Park and Lazy Sunday afternoon. ... Beset by drug and alcohol problems, he was making plans for a comeback with Frampton in 1991 when he died in a house fire that destroyed his 16th Century Essex cottage. He was 44 years old.This is a well researched book marred only by poor pictures, all black and white.An extensive list of all Marriott's recordings, solo and for various artists, throws up some interesting gems. For instance, he wrote and sang an award-winning advert for a brand of coffee in the 70s, and played on various Rolling Stones tracks.All in all, a sad tale well told."

    3. Clark, Pete (2005-12-05). "Rocking good reads". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329879723. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful (Helter Skelter, Pounds 14.99) is ably constructed by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, but they are unable to dispel the sense that this baby-faced man with an evil tongue was a bit of a sod. Apparently, Marriott had an alter ego called Melvin the bald- headed wrestler, who leapt into being whenever Steve was off his face on coke and drink, and in a mood to be as nasty as possible."

    4. Crowley, Lord (2004-07-05). "Still room for ravers..." BBC. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

      The article notes: "This week sees the publication of the book All Too Beautiful written by Paolo Hewitt with John Hellier. It's the definitive story of one of London's all time great rock n rollers: Steve Marriott... An exhaustive account of the East End musical maverick, it spans his beginnings as a child prodigy, his memorable work with arch top Mods the Small Faces, and all the way through to his later work with Humble Pie, his subsequent solo career and his untimely death in 1991. ... Which is why it's nice to see this book and the success of various recent compilations that give the man his 'propers'. His proper respect. ... A right riveting read as they say."

    5. Wobble, Jah (2004-08-01). "All Too Beautiful by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier: Artful, mercurial - but he wore a lot of people out". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-07-06. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

      The review notes: "All Too Beautiful answers the question. Written by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, it is nothing if not a labour of love. Hellier ran a Small Faces fanzine for years, and Hewitt's love of all things mod is well documented. However, the book is not just for hardcore fans of Steve Marriott. It provides a down to earth account of the "swinging London" scene of the 1960s, by which time Steve and the Small Faces were ensconced in Pimlico, larging it at their Westmoreland Terrace abode. The shenanigans Marriott encountered in the music business at that time are also well documented."

    6. Unreliable source that cannot be used to establish notability:
      1. Connolly, Ray (2012-04-05). "Small Face who fell from grace". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Evening Standard.

        This review is from Ray Connolly, who has written for the Daily Mail, as well as The Sunday Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer. But it cannot be established to notability owing to the consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL that deprecated the source. The review notes: "Steve Marriott wasn't the great star that Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier believe him to have been, but he was an accomplished musician with a striking voice. Nor is this a great biography, mainly because the subject had such a one-dimensional life, and is such an unattractive personality. It is, however, one of the best books I've read about the backwaters of rock music."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (short story)

[edit]
Neither (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG; unsourced DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laws, Catherine (1998). "Morton Feldman's Neither: A Musical Translation of Beckett's Text". In Bryden, Mary (ed.). Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–86. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198184270.003.0005.
  • Tubridy, Derval (2020). "Beckett, Feldman, Salcedo... Neither". In Caselli, Daniela (ed.). Beckett and Nothing: Trying to Understand Beckett. Manchester University Press. pp. 43–159.
  • Laws, Catherine (2017). "Feldman – Beckett – Johns: Patterning, Memory and Subjectivity". In Heile, Björn (ed.). The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music. Taylor & Francis. pp. The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music.
Jfire (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon volumes

[edit]
List of Pokémon volumes (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)

INDISCRIMINATE list of volumes from a variety of non-notable manga series, with their only similarity being that they're related to Pokémon. List of chapter information with no context as to why this split is notable nor necessary, and has no reason to exist separately from any other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

[edit]
Vampire Beach (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)

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 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. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."

    2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."

    3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."

    4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.

      The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."

      The article lists the books in the series:

      Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S

      Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.

      Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.

    5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."

    6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.

      The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."

    7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.

      The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vampire Beach to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.
  • Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
  • Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
  • McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
  • Can't access Squires 2006.
  • Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
  • Can't access The Bookseller.
  • C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.
Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet on whether the sources cited provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1266944808"