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 First Rule of Mastery

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. The sources are largely promotional (publisher’s site, Barnes & Noble, author interviews). Coverage in Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Fast Company is brief and not significant critical analysis. There is insufficient independent, reliable secondary coverage to establish enduring notability. Setwardo (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setwardo (talk • contribs)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviewed in Library Journal (in article) and the School administrator magazine (EBSCOhost 177074785). More reviews would be nice, but two is sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the reviews listed above there is another review here. Passes NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio

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

While J. M. G. Le Clézio is obviously notable, the article does not cite any sources and fails WP:NBOOK. I was unable to find evidence that "Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio" has been the subject of any published works, let alone independent ones, failing criterion 1. The Nobel Prize website mentions the book, but the site does not specifically mention the book itself as having won any major awards, which makes me doubt that it meets criterion 2. I feel that if the book had made any contributions to sciences, humanities or arts or anything else, then there would be something mentioning it in the article -- there isn't, so I doubt it meets criterion 3. I was unable to find anything relating to the book being used as a subject of instruction at any schools, failing criterion 4. While the author is at least somewhat significant, he's not significant enough so that any of his works are considered notable- he's not a common subject of academic study, in other words. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Literature, and France. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added two published reviews, to me taking this book over the threshold of having multiple independent and in-depth sources (WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It also appears in an index of reviews of the Times Literary Supplement, though I don't have access to that publication. There seem to be many French reviews but are a victim of the very poor digital access of French periodicals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above reviews. The TLS review is in issue 3638 on Friday, Nov. 19, 1971, p. 1442. I'll add it to the article, though the review itself is a bit short. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews that have been added to the article are enough for NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing this. Thanks everyone for your contributions! Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modifier letter prime

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

When this page was initially created, the edit had "Tag: possible cut and paste move or recreation", and since the edit didn't give credit, this might be copyright infringement unless it wasn't a "cut and paste move or recreation". BodhiHarp (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BodhiHarp (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics Book

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, serving here as a WP:PROMOTION only. A day earlier this was removed as WP:G11 and WP:A1 Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quick note in case anyone was considering nominating this for a speedy. This doesn't really qualify under either A1 or G11. A1 is more meant to cover non-coherent stuff and/or when something is to vague to make sense. While short, this article does give enough info to establish the focus of the article. As for promotional content (G11), there really isn't anything overtly promotional in the article. Notability is certainly in question, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent VII, please don’t delete. I have just expanded it now. And I am planning to expand it more with references. HQIQ (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, IDK if WP:NBOOK is a valid complaint in my context. HQIQ (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By valid, do you mean that it should be ignored or that it currently meets NBOOK? If it's the first, then that isn't really how it works - all articles must meet notability guidelines. Subject specific guidelines were developed because GNG can be so broad that it overlooks specific situations where a topic is notable within its subject area. As far as passing NBOOK goes, this does not currently pass NBOOK. The DK and Penguin sources are WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it was put out by the publishers themselves. They can be used to back up basic details but cannot be used to establish notability. Goodreads reviews cannot be used as a source to establish notability. The site itself is largely unusable as a source as well. The reason for this is that anyone can post a review, so it's not discerning. It's expected that something listed on the site will gain reviews. The only times user reviews are notable is when it results in widespread coverage along the lines of Saving Christmas or Bend, Not Break.

Finally, The Nile is a place where one can purchase the book. This should be avoided as a source because it could be seen as a form of promotion - plus there's almost never anything in the site that cannot be sourced with something else. So for example, the source is being used to back up that the book was published by DK - however this could be sourced by the book itself. Sometimes, rarely, you'll have something like an interview on sites like this - if the interview is useful it could be considered a primary source, but it wouldn't establish notability. The reason for this is that the sales site has a vested interest in promoting their offerings, so it can never be neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also missed the PDF from Tutoo - this is just a scan of the book itself. I'm going to remove this from the article because it poses a major WP:COPYVIO issue. This does not appear to be an official scan of the book (ie, put out by the publisher or by someone they authorized), so it would be considered an illegal copy of the book. Wikipedia cannot host links to illegal copies of books. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_publications_of_Dorling_Kindersley#Non-fiction. I wasn't able to find where this book is independently notable of the publisher. It exists and can be purchased, but neither of those things give the book notability. I did some searching but couldn't find where this book was reviewed or covered in-depth. I see where it was mentioned briefly in relation to the publisher or where it was listed along with other books that were for sale, but nothing that would be considered an in-depth, reliable secondary source. To be honest, this is kind of par for the course for these types of books. DK puts out hundreds of similar books that focus on a single subject. It's seen as so routine that most media outlets won't give the individual books any true focus, especially as one of these books may go through several updates over the years. Now, I don't see why this couldn't redirect to the publisher page for the time being. If another book with the same title comes out this could be moved to a more publisher specific name like "The Politics Book (DK Publishing)". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of publications of Dorling Kindersley#Non-fiction, although I do not understand why a list of publications by a specific publisher is appropriate but that is not this discussion. Yue🌙 18:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of publications of Dorling Kindersley#Non-fiction per above. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don’t. HQIQ talk 07:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HQIQ Why though? Do I keep this article, instead? >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 00:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeLibrary460, I just want this article to stay, please. It’s my first article created. HQIQ talk 07:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider this. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 07:34, 22 August 2025 (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. Caro, Susanne (2013-04-15). "The Politics Book". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
  The review notes: "This book serves as a helpful introduction to the thoughts and theories that have influenced leaders and policy throughout world history. The bright, bold colors and illustrations help make the subject approachable. A good resource for middle and high school students who are interested in political science and history."
2. Gardner, Jan (2013-03-17). "The Find". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "“The Politics Book,” the latest installment in DK’s Big Ideas Simply Explained series, is a visual encyclopedia of “isms.” Beginning with Confucianism in 500 B.C., it explores more than 100 big ideas, including Leninism, liberalism, and libertarianism. Key dates, statements, works, and thinkers are highlighted in a colorful presentation. Naturally, the political views of the editors become apparent from time to time as it does when the US Patriot Act is criticized during a discussion of Carl Schmitt’s concept of exceptionality. Nevertheless, the book is an accessible introduction to centuries of political thought."
3. Hill, Greg (2016-08-15). "The importance of being well-informed about politics". Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
  The review notes: ""The Politics Book" popped up during a recent foray to the public library. ... The historical overview of politics was, as some reviewers noted, distilled and simplified. But it was also easily digestible. There I learned about philosopher George Hegel's curious view on the root of slavery being the slave's obsequiousness ... DK's overview of John Stuart Mill's philosophy, particularly his thoughts on "tyranny of the majority," revived more pleasant memories."
4. From Amazon: "With easy-to-follow graphics, succinct quotations, and accessible text, The Politics Book is an essential reference for students and anyone wondering how politics works." – Politico.com
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Politics Book to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Notability requires multiple, non-trivial sources or notable status, major awards, or influential authors, none of which are evident. The book violates WP:NOTPROMO. ~~~~
Editor1769 22:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further review of Cunard's coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I don't think the Politico.com one is a review. It appears to just be something they got from the publisher. They original source is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130323135153/http://www.politico.com/bookshelf/books/details/9781465402141/the-politics-book-by-dk-publishing ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Library Journal and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner sources from Cunard are sufficient to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craposyncrasies

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

Notability not established ("reception" appears to be just random bloggers and even a Facebook post!) and reads like an advertisement. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Was a WP:BEFORE done? The book was reviewed in this English language journal [1] There are also several newspaper reviews in the mainstream foreign press given in the foreign language wikipedia article. There's clearly enough independent coverage to meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above review mentions. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Inspiration Un Limited

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

Can find no sigcov, only citations to books they published. What brief coverage does exist is about 1 book they published, "50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe 1944-1948", which should have an article because it was a big controversy, but not them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hertzler

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Couldn't find any reviews of his work. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Ohio. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. I found these two local articles, this Associated Press piece that was published in several dozen newspapers, this Los Angeles Times article, and this article in The Tribune. MCE89 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears not notable on its face and the RS coverage is inadequate. Does not meet GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't been able to turn up reviews, but it looks like Second Skin was the subject of instruction in a college class, California State University's 2008 GEW 101 (gen ed writing?), per these materials. Not sure that a rhet/comp class entirely meets the spirit of WP:NBOOK#4, though (and that criterion needs 2+ classes). I also wasn't able to find coverage of the press he founded. And yet I do think the profiles he got are pretty thorough and spread out over time, and the Pushcart nominations are promising. It feels like there could be more coverage in printed poetry journals of the 80s and 90s. So, sorry, this is what I found but I don't have an actual opinion for keep/delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. I think AP + LA times is good, and the rest helps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Contents

Literature

The First Rule of Mastery

Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio

Orwellian

Modifier letter prime

The Politics Book

Craposyncrasies

Verlag Inspiration Un Limited

Terry Hertzler

Literature proposed deletions