Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

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]

Munchkin Country

[edit]
Munchkin Country (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)

Similar to previous country articles that were AfD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadling Country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winkie Country. Very doubtful that The Maps of Oz ref is WP:SIGCOV. Finding Oz book talks mostly about the Munchkins themselves. The book is available for borrowing at Archive.org: [1]. Note that Munchkin is a separate article to this country article. Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds, p. 362 has a comparison to regional US as non-plot commentary. "Utopian Tension in L. Frank Baum's Oz" notes that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in American Popular Culture has commentary on "the class divisions in Munchkin Country (e.g. the rich Munchkin Boq) and the general economic disparity in Oz", but I have no access to this book to check how extended that is. Does anyone else? Daranios (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in Decadence

[edit]
Violence in Decadence (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 is an essay and the topic does not appear to be itself notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Periplum

[edit]
Periplum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources provided don't give sigcov. The article reads largely like a dictionary entry and makes little attempt to show notability; rather simply showing that the word exists. Any content to be preserved could perhaps be included in Periplus Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Modernist Literature

[edit]
Bengali Modernist Literature (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)

See WP:NOPAGE. The article has nothing that hasn't been already covered in Bengali literature. Capitals00 (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not completely covered in the Bengali Literature page. For example, the States of the India page only shows the Indian states and their capitals, but another page is needed for detailed discussion of those states.
For example, there is a description of Sangam literature in Tamil literature, but there is a separate page for Sangam literature for its detailed description. So please remove the deiltation tag. पांडेजी की बिकिपीडिया (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyayubihime (film)

[edit]
Oyayubihime (film) (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)

Unfortunately, after looking around for sources to the best of my ability, searching under both English and Japanese names, I can't find any good sources for this film. The other-language equivalents of this article appear about as barren of useful references as this is (although the Japanese article is about the anthology series of films that this is part of, rather than the film by itself). The only reference I do know of is this article about Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim which briefly mentions it, but obviously that doesn't pass SIGCOV. If anyone can find any good sources, I'd be happy to see this kept, but as the situation stands I'm not seeing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please offer one suggestion, not three. Also, the outcome of an AFD can not be Rename or Move as that is an editorial decision that editors must discuss. So, if that is the result you want, argue to Keep and then a Move can be discussed on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that relisting comment was partially addressed to me, so I'll reply. "Rename" seems to be a perfectly valid and pretty standard AfD !vote. As it implies refocusing the article on a broader subject matter that includes the topic discussed here, I think it is best to leave my !vote the way I originally conceived it. "Rename" implies a Keep, yes, but I assume any good faith closer will understand that. As for one suggestion not three, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#One bolded vote, which clearly states:

Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect".

Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huayi Publishing House

[edit]
Huayi Publishing House (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)

Reads like a press release and it may be better to WP:STARTOVER. Amigao (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lei, Ben 雷奔 (2001). "书业 "黑马" 细说生意经——华艺出版社的陋巷传奇" [Publishing Industry 'Dark Horse' Shares Business Secrets — The Alleyway Legend of Huayi Publishing House]. 文化月刊 [Cultural Monthly] (in Chinese).

      This is a citation from Google Scholar.

    2. "华艺出版社：我们是怎样包装崔永元(1)" [Huayi Publishing: How We Packaged Cui Yongyuan (Part 1)]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2001-07-30. Archived from the original on 2007-02-03. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "华艺出版社因成功包装名人图书而在出版界享有盛誉。虽然，金丽红认为，华艺出版的大多数书并不是名人书；但事实上，华艺成功推出了不少名人书，如吴小莉的《足音》、敬一丹的《声音》、白岩松的《痛并快乐着》等，还有姜文、徐静蕾、高峰等人的书，而且，这些图书几乎是推出一本畅销一本。另外，著名作家如刘心武、王朔、王蒙、刘震云等人的重要著作，差不多也都是华艺率先推出的。" From Google Translate: "Huayi Publishing House enjoys a good reputation in the publishing industry for its successful packaging of celebrity books. Although Jin Lihong believes that most of the books published by Huayi are not celebrity books; in fact, Huayi has successfully launched many celebrity books, such as Wu Xiaoli's Footworks, Jing Yidan's Voice, Bai Yansong's Pain and Happiness, etc., as well as books by Jiang Wen, Xu Jinglei, Gao Feng and others, and these pictures The book is almost a best-selling book. In addition, the important works of famous writers such as Liu Xinwu, Wang Shuo, Wang Meng, Liu Zhenyun and others are almost all pioneered by Huayi."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huayi Publishing House (simplified Chinese: 华艺出版社; traditional Chinese: 華藝出版社) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series

[edit]
Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin 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)

Again, this is just a very poorly refenced WP:ALLPLOT, this time there is even no list of apperances to match it. Fails WP:NLIST. WP:ATD-R, if we want to be generous, would be the main Aubrey–Maturin series, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is essentially a fan article consisting almost wholly of unsourced plot elements, contrary to WP:ALLPLOT. Even if much can be sourced to reliable primary sources (the novels themselves), that would still not avoid the requirements of WP:ALLPLOT. There is little critical analyis, but what there is amounts to WP:OR, with no attempt to provide secondary reliable sources to support any character analysis. Very little here is salvageable, and no purpose would be served by keeping it and merely adding a tag calling for reliable sources to be added. I note that several of the characters already have their own articles, but there's no sourced material here worth merging. If anyone knows of independent sources that critically discuss any of the other major characters, they could consider creating new character-specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Changed vote - see below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this article helpful because it is a long series of novels about a set of characters with connected stories. It is helpful to a person who reads the series, and it provides a series view of these characters. At the time most text was written, the sources used were the novels themselves. If the lack of other sources is the true objection, perhaps there should be a request for more references both to the novels and any reviews or other sources. Per the revision history, I wrote more text than any other editor, which I had not realized. I listened to audio books so was not providing page numbers, but book and chapter at best. I see this as an extension or companion article to the Aubrey–Maturin series article. The period of history in which the novels are set was long and complex and the story twining through 21 novels is also long and complex. Perhaps another edit to this article would be links from the article on each novel to this article under debate, to specific characters. The descriptions here are series descriptions, not appropriate for any one novel’s article. I can slightly understand someone confusing it with fan text — for this series, there are links to the fan-type articles and tables. This article is descriptions of characters as they developed through the many years of the setting. I do hope the article is not deleted. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSHELPFUL is not a good article for deletion discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is worth noting that the “fan web pages” for this series list every single minor or major character in the novel series, a very long list, where this article includes the major characters and those characters who “turn the plot” meaning they move the story in a new direction. Those characters are generally real historical people, moving the plot in tune with history of that era. I find these novels and these characters worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because of the high quality of the writing by O’Brien and the exposition of an important era of history, both the major lenghthy war and the age of scientific discovery. I think this is the only time I have disagreed with editor @MichaelMaggs:, yet I do respect the points he makes and want to respect the changes he feels will improve the article. I think that some of the better reviews of specific novels might provide reliable sources to add to this article that focusses on characters rather than on each novel. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no sources present in the article that covers the subject of recurring characters in the book series, and none have been presented in this AFD. Searches are also not yielding any significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The primary characters both have independent articles, and the main article on the series has a "Characters" section that can be expanded if sourced information is found, but there is nothing justifying a separate, largely unsourced collection of minor characters. Neither WP:ITSHELPFUL or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are valid arguments for keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. When we focus on policy-based reasons, we just don't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I also don't really see evidence that sources could exist. I'm open to an WP:ATD if someone wants to build that case. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am sympathetic to the points Prairieplant makes above, and I would like to apologise to for being overly quick to dismiss this as merely a 'fan article'. I have changed my vote and have struck my initial comments. Although "being a useful article" is not in itself a valid argument to keep, per WP:ITSHELPFUL, it may encourage editors to put in that bit of extra effort to avoid losing valuable content. In order to overcome WP:ALLPLOT, we'll need external sources. I'm aware of the following, which I hope should be enough:
  1. At least eight of the characters are based on real people: reliable sources include Tolstoy and King (biographies) and Brown (currently listed as a general source at the end of the article)
  2. Around 12 characters appear in the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, and real world links can be added to the film, and to the respective actors
  3. Many more appear in the various BBC radio adaptations of Master and Commander, The Mauritius Command, Desolation Island, HMS Surprise and The Fortune of War. Again, real world links can be added.
  4. Almost all the characters have separate entries in Brown; these generally summarise the characters' actions throughout the series, but without additional critical analysis. The presence of these recurring characters in this scholarly companion volume (which is by no means an in-universe catalogue) should be enough to pass WP:LISTN. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should note that in this type of list, not all entries need third party sources, and it's fine for them to be sourced to the primary work itself. Compare List of Dilbert characters which in spite of citing no external sources whatsoever is specifically noted in the guideline WP:CSC as being a valid example of a stand-alone list.
I will commit to adding the sources I've mentoned if others feel that would be a worthwhile thing to do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even after three weeks of AfD, the article cites no third-party sources and contains not a word that is not plot summary. WP:NOTPLOT mandates deletion. Sandstein 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein, you didn't address the suggestions I made in my comment directly above yours. I’m willing to add the specific sources I listed, but I’d appreciate an indication as to whether they have potential to help. I’d prefer not to invest several hours compiling and formatting them only to find, after the fact, that editors always felt that such sources could never, even in principle, save the article. I’d welcome your thoughts. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That the characters appear in adaptations (which are primary sources and not independent) does not make them (as fictional characters) notable. Nor does the fact that some are also historical figures. In that case, it is the historical figures themselves who are (often) notable, not their literary portrayals. For those, we would need multiple independent reliable sources covering this particular set of fictional(ized) characters. So far we have only "The Patrick O'Brian Muster Book" by one Mr. Brown, which I don't know whether it is independent from the author or editor of the books it covers, and which at any rate is only one source. Which means that I'm not convinced of the article topic's notability. Even if the topic were notable, the current content is all plot summary and must therefore be deleted. Sandstein 18:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not rely grasp this reliance on NotPlot as an objection. Yes, I read the text to which it links. @Sandstein:, will you be happy only if we find masters and PhD theses about these characters in this series of novels? The Muster book by Brown mentioned above is independent of the author of the novels, by the way. If @MichaelMaggs: is willing to put in the effort to enrich commentary in a form to fit this article, I say encourage him. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC) my[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

[edit]