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.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to poetry.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Literature[edit]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK, the work of a non-notable author. Has been tagged as such since Feb 2023 without any improvement. Was de-prodded without establishing how it was notable. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden's lyrical themes and inspirations[edit]

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

This is 95% original research (borderline WP:FANCRUFT) that has a handful of "sources" that themselves are largely poorly-cited pop website listicles, which only support a small portion of the claims here. The Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences section itself is much-better sourced and comprehensive, and sufficient without this page. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, Poetry, Film, Music, History, and Mythology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary and short spin out. This sort of content should be covered at Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences. Very little of it is sourced and not redundant to the main article, so no need for a merge, and I don't feel like it's a particularly likely search term either, so probably doesn't require a redirect either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and pretty trivial. Shankargb (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but agree with User:Sergecross73 that the literary and historical themes should be covered on the band's main page, I will try and make a start on that today. Orange sticker (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grossology (books)[edit]

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

Non-notable book series. Insufficient sourcing for 15 years, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. PROD removed due to talkpage message from anon who "loved the books as a kid". Jdcooper (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The anon was right. Grossology was an incredibly popular book series that spawned a TV show and a traveling museum exhibit, and I can find tons of newspaper articles about it. Here's a few: "Teaching the oozy gooey science of grossness" (Allentown Morning Call, Aug 2013), "Museum exhibit uncovers all things gross" (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept 2005), "Totally Gross" (Louisville Courier Journal, Feb 2007). Keep the article per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And move to Grossology as the primary topic per Toughpigs and the reliable sources he has found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, these sources seem to refer to the exhibition, so I'm not sure they establish the books as the primary topic. The article about the TV series is far longer (though with a large amount of unsourced excess trivia). Maybe all the articles (+ info on the exhibition from the sources) should be merged into one. Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - traveling museum exhibit appears notable and has received nationwide coverage (albeit, from multiple local newspapers) from about 2007 to 2021. I also tracked down this NYT article, though it looks to just be a passing mention of the book. jellyfish ✉ 19:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil[edit]

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

I don’t think this book is notable as it lacks in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. I tried redirecting to the article about its author but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laputa[edit]

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

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search (scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. --Викидим (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229

The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21

The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334

Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30

Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944

These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach[edit]

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

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Winkie Country redirects to Land of Oz (since Jan 2024) and the non-primarysource sourcing is non-existent (both here and in the history of Winkie Country), it is hard to envision a reason to keep this article. I do not expect there to be substantial non-(in-universe) coverage. It would take effort to modify Land of Oz to be a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, this appears to be the best reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, the first and, as far as I know, only book this fictional city appeared in. The article is completely unsourced, and searches brought up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Which is not surprising, considering the city was an incredibly minor part of a single book. Rorshacma (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Lost Princess of Oz is the only book it appeared in. I just checked and it takes up about 15% of the book, but it's just one of many strange lands that are (spoiler alert) overcome by Ozma's friends and Cayke and the Frogman.
I'm going to say keep but rename to List of Oz Places (created by Baum) to conform to List of Oz characters (created by Baum). We recently had an AfD for Land of Ev. The Deadly Desert is another obvious target - it has a fresh GNG notice on it from User:Toughpigs so I'm not the only one that notices. Oblivy (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not at all versed in the Star Wars universe so it is possible this could be merged with one or more appropriate lists. I found one sort of substantial review: O'Connor, Michael G. "STAR WARS NOVEL LACKS FORCE TO DELIVER GOODS." Winston-Salem Journal [Winston-Salem, NC], 30 July 2000, p. A20. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A63765955/ITOF. It pans the book, but it is still about it. Publisher's Weekly lists it as a best seller over a number of issues. This is from Entertainment Weekly but it looks like various publications pick up the PW list: “`Rogue’ Warrior.” 2000. Entertainment Weekly, no. 542 (May): 69.(Yes, this says "Warrior" instead of "Planet" but it is about the Rogue Planet book.) I didn't find reviews in Kirkus or Library Journal. This is thin for a free-standing article about a book. Lamona (talk) 02:58, 25 May 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. Powell, Joseph (2000-06-06). "'Rogue Planet' adds little to 'Star Wars saga. Color in scenery, not characters". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Set three years after the events of Episode 1, Rogue Planet follows Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and his young Padawan (Jedi apprentice) Anakin Skywalker as they search for a missing Jedi Knight and a mystery planet, rumored to be the home of the fastest ships in the galaxy. ... But die-hard fans might be disappointed. Rogue Planet is full of sizzling light sabers, dizzying locales and action that is vintage Star Wars, but it doesn't expand the horizons of this space opera."
2. Beem, Scott (2000-10-04). "Star Wars: Rogue Planet". The Mt. Zion Region-News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The writer introduces some coolness: living ships and sentient planets, but is unable to explore them in any detail. seems choppy and hurried. The writing at times; less than fluid. Again I can only assume that the Star Wars series editors had a certain format they insisted upon. Too bad, really. One wonders what Greg Bear might have done, but then Star Wars isn't really his style. He's probably laughing all the way to the bank, as Lucas has so many times."
3. O'Connor, Michael G. (2000-07-30). "Star Wars novel lacks force to deliver goods". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "And the story lacks a Star Wars staple: action. Only at the end do things get really interesting, and even then Anakin and Obi-Wan seem to be mostly out of the action. And the big battle fizzles with a lame and implausible conclusion. Bear does triumph on once score: He successfully ties Rogue Planet into the tight Star Wars chronology, linking events in this story to later ones. His subtlety keeps the reader guessing through most of the novel, and his descriptions give a clearer vision of what the next Star Wars movie will be about."
4. Modi, Parth (2000-10-01). "'Rogue Planet' is Episode 1.5". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "One of the newest books to enter the saga is Rogue Planet by Greg Bear. This story takes place between the recently made "Episode 1" and the eagerly anticipated "Episode 2." It has, in fact, been touted as "Episode 1.5." ... I found that while the writing is excellent, the most appealing part of this book is that it fits in with the rest of the Star Wars saga so well. This book is a wonderful read for all science fiction readers as well."
5. Hunt, Stephen (2000-08-22). "Bear caught in star warp trap". North Yorkshire County Publications. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  The review notes: "The problem is Bear is constrained from writing a novel of serious impact by his central characters. ... Where Bear's genius glimmers through is in the setting and the supporting characters, where he can give his imagination free rein - and that's when the novel really becomes a page-turner. Certainly one of the better Star Wars novels and, better yet, no Jar-Jar Binks."
6. Douglas (2000-07-15). "After Phantom, a galactic Rogue". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  The review notes: "But while Rogue Planet is published under the copyright of George Lucas' Lucasfilm, it is still a book, written by the award-winning science fiction writer Bear. ... I have to confess that it has been many years since I have read a science fiction novel, and Rogue Planet is certainly not one that is written in the Booker Prize winning style that I aspire to read now. But Bear has a straightforward way with words that is almost imagist in its effect."
7. Buker, Derek M. (2002). Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory. Chicago: American Library Association. p. 98. ISBN 0-8389-0831-4. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Rogue Planet by Greg Bear Young Anakin Skywalker has been apprenticed to be a Jedi Knight under the training of Obi Wan Kenobi for the last few years since the events chronicled in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Although he is a gifted student, lately Anakin has grown restless with his studies at the Jedi Temple and has taken to sneaking off to take part in dangerous races. Hoping to harness the boy’s energy, the Jedi Council assigns Obi Wan and Anakin to look into the disappearance of another Jedi on the mysterious planet Zonama Sekot. What they find is a world of mystery and danger whose inhabitants “grow” wonderful spacecraft. What the pair doesn’t know is that three different factions are closing in on Zonama Sekot with the purpose of stealing the technology to grow organic spacecraft. And they’ll eliminate anyone in the way to get it."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Maryles, Daisy (2000-05-15). "behind the bestsellers". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 247, no. 20. p. 24. EBSCOhost 3218614.
    The article notes: "A brand-name newcomer--Star Wars: Rogue Planet by Greg Bear from Del Rey/Lucas-Books--continues to please and after one week on sale, went back to press for a second printing, bringing the total in print to 193,000. The author is finishing an eight-city tour. "
  2. Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burt, Daniel S.; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R.; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2001). What Do I Read Next?, 2001. Volume 1 : A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction. Detroit: Gale. p. 762. ISBN 0-7876-3391-7. ISSN 1052-2212. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Summary: Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to the distant and largely unknown planet of Zonama Selot, whose people build the fastest starships in the galaxy. They cross paths with Wilhuff Tarkin, an ambitious military officer, who wants to make use of the planet's advanced technology to create an irresistible military force."
  3. Pringle, David, ed. (June 2001). "Rogue Planet". Interzone. No. 168. p. 63. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "Bear, Greg. Rogue Planet. “Star Wars.” Arrow/Lucas Books, ISBN 0-09-941030-3, 341 pp, A-format paperback, £5.99. (Sf movie spinoff novel, first published in the USA, 2000; it seems Mr Bear will turn his hand to anything, in this case a novel about the boyhood exploits of George Lucas’s space-opera character Annakin Skywalker; it’s dedicated to, among others, “Jack, and Ed, and Doc Smith,” which shows the right spirit.) 70th May 2001."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rogue Planet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The newspaper reviews that Cunard found demonstrate notability for the book. Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lamona What do you think of the new sources? I can withdraw the deletion discussion of you think this should be kept. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of Sand[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you're working on an article about a novel, it's always worthwhile to use The Wikipedia Library to find book reviews. That's what I did, and I added several reviews that I found to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references are incorrectly formatted but they are there, and significant magazine coverage pre-internet is generally strongly indicative of notability. BrigadierG (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews added by Eastmain. Toughpigs (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and Library Journal reviews? Looks like sufficient SIGCOV for a book to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pyewacket (novel)[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is minimal and does not provide enough information to meet Wikipedia's standards for a comprehensive encyclopedia entry.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lockridge, Richard (1967-11-05). "Cat Tales ...". The New York Times. p. BR24. ProQuest 118057210.
  The review noters: "Rosemary Weir's Pyewacket (Abelard-Schuman, $3.25. illustrated by Charles Pickard) is about a group of varied cats who live in a run-down street called Pig Lane and who, under the leadership of Pyewacket (himself 2 semi-magic cat), decide to evict the humans who also inhabit the street and are inclined to get in the way of cats. The humans do go, although not precisely in accordance with Pyewacket's plan—which involves an alliance with rats. The story for 6 to 9's is ingenious, well-plotted and pretty funny. The cats talk only to one another."
2. "Pyewacket review". Kirkus Reviews. 1967. p. 1210. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.
  The page verifies that Kirkus Reviews reviewed Pyewacket in 1967.
3. Martin, Pat (1968-09-21). "Pat Martin Scans Books for the Young". Redwood City Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "For those boys and girls who would like to hear about a coterie of conniving cats, here is one-eyed Pyewacket with his gang, in a most amusing story. Living in Pig Lane, the cats decide to drive out their unworthy owners and so take over the disreputable homes in which they live. When the owners are legally dispossessed, one can understand that the cats are entitled to think their plan is succeeding. What actually happens provides a satisfactory solution and the cats find exactly the spot for a gang of good ratters. The things that make this special are illustrations of Pyewacket by Charles Pickard and a very fine characterization of a very tough cat. (Ages 10-12.)"
4. Van Fleet, Virginia (1968-04-28). "Young Readers: Cat Tale Excellent". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "For all who enjoy cats and their unpredictable antics, "Pyewacket" by Rosemary Weir (Abelard-Schuman, New York, 13.25) will (although it was written for children from 6 to 9; be a delightful tidbit. The story concerns a colony of cats, led by a redoubtable fighter, Pyewacket, whose owners live in shacks in a slum district in a British city, called Pig Lane. ... At their leader's suggestion, they decide to get rid of their people by making a peace treaty with the rats. ... What happens then shouldn't happen to a cat, even a rebel feline, but the author contrives a most ingenious and satisfying solution."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Blishen, Edward (1967-07-07). "Books for children: History and imagination". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "Finally, for younger readers, there's Pyewacket, by Rosemary Weir (Abelard-Schuman, 15s), also about the East End and demolition; the heroes here are cats, who set out to drive the humans from Pig Lane. I take off at once at the behest of almost any fantasy and especially one about cats: but this seemed heavy and calculated, and I just found myself being bumped gloomily along the ground."
6. Article about a sequel:
  1. "The World of Books". Manchester Evening News. 1981-03-06. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com .
    The review is about a sequel. The review notes: "Pyewacket and Son by Rosemary Weir (Grasshopper, 95p). Feline fantasy about a pack of cats who work as rat-catchers in a cat-food factory. Their leader, the one-eyed, torn-eared Pyewacket, declares war on a gang of alley-cats when his son is accused of stealing fish by the workers, How he traps the villains makes a perfectly delightful tale. Magnificent moggy madness."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pyewacket to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assirian cat What do you think of the new sources? I think that it is enough to show notability. SL93 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assirian cat can't reply since the cat was taken away by the animal catcher yesterday. Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources. It is still short enough that it could be merged into an article on the author, but such an article does not seem to exist. Geschichte (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...

You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.

The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions[edit]