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 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. Nominator withdrawal their nomination. . (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.O.D.S.

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

Fails NBOOK and GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is clearly enough coverage to meet NBOOK. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Astaire (talk) 12:41, 28 July 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.

Kaanapponnu

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

Unsourced, notability issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boardgamer

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

I found no significant coverage for this defunct game magazine. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operations (magazine) as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect because the article is mostly unreferenced, and the one reference that does exist is an unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on whatever else shows up in this AfD, that may be the reasonable outcome. I'm open to see what others can come up with, as I know we have plenty who are more accomplished board gaming source hunters than I am. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Version Control by Example

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

Found this while looking through orphans. A WP:BEFORE Fails to come up with any reviews or charts besides programming blogs. Even reviews linked on the author's website lacks anything for WP:NBOOK. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel)

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

I could not find a single review for this book, failing WP:NBOOK -1ctinus📝🗨 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Update: after the authors page was created, i’m fine with a redirect.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Aiello#Bibliography (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a new article about Robert Aiello. This title can now redirect there. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Aiello#Bibliography per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Kapital, Volume I

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

Don't see why each separate volume of Das Kapital would need its own article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs trimming, but seems to be a valid page split overall. Each volume is quite different from the other, so including detailed analyses (as would be expected with a foundational work) of all three into one article would bloat it beyond compare. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, it differs from the others in that it was the only volume that was published before Marx died. The volumes came years apart and are obviously standalone works in addition to bearing an overarching title. The book had almost two decades of reception before the second volume came out. Its bearing on world history has not been commented by the nominator, who has not provided a real reason for deletion either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge I'm not sure we have such a lengthy summary of many other books besides the Bible. The main article should include a better more concise summary and the two short sections at the bottom. Reywas92^Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, many scholarly studies have been written about volume I of Capital. For example (titles I pulled from two minutes of Googling...) there's Fredric Jameson's Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One and Riccardo Bellofiore/Nicola Taylor's collection The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume I of Marx's Capital. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sole spinout of a series of three volumes covered at the WP:SS parent topic. I'm not seeing any issue with the way this is logically organized, and notability is not seriously in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Absence of delete rationale." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Manifestations

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Could not find any significant independent coverage of this book in ProQuest or Google. The current article is a mess of WP:OR with (broken) citations including Amazon, auction websites, and library catalogs. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The book does appear to be regarded as a rare book, per this bookseller, with an intriguing history of suppression, which could plausibly have resulted in (print) newspaper coverage in the 80s. However, I couldn't find any such coverage in ProQuest or NewspaperARCHIVE.com . I wish Newspapers.com was currently available because that's where I typically have the best luck for this type of thing. But in the absence of any proper RS, there's no good rationale for a keep. No good merge target either, since the authors do not have articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Newspapers.com tip, I ran a search and there are 23 hits, but none have to do with the book. I agree it seems interesting but with no RS to support it I think it's a delete unfortunately. Astaire (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life with Elsie

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

Article with flowery language for a non-notable memoir that fails the notability guildelines for books. No reviews or other mentions online that I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS which for me are more or less equivalent: we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable publications, most likely book reviews, but I couldn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only conclude that this book is self-published. "Briarwood Printing" is indeed a printing company, not a publisher, and seems to currently specialize in printing stickers. I don't find the book in any libraries holding it, and there is one copy available used on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It comes nowhere near to passing the relevant standard. The massive list of "references" is pure spam, since they predate the book: a local news story from 1949 cannot be evidence of the noteworthiness of a book published in 2006. This looks more like someone pasting their family genealogy notes into Wikipedia than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article. If there's not a personal COI through the author's family, there might be a professional one through his employer. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. I never thought we'd see the day where "Wikipedia is not a hosting platform for your book report" could possibly be a logical reaction to an article's contents. That day has come. On top of the obvious lack of any notability as demonstrated above, this is obviously AI-generated nonsense (I wanted to use garbage, but even garbage has uses, and this article none). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow in the Mirror

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

Ultimately, this novel fails WP:NBOOK because I was unable to find multiple reviews of the book. The only review I could find is here and here, but it appears that the second review is a blog, and thus fails WP:NBOOK, so if somebody is able to find a second review I will withdraw the nomination, but it seems unlikely. The novel is really obscure—for example, it only has one review on goodreads. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is two sentences, and not exactly something that holds much weight. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I can only find the Publisher's Weekly review; there's a book by another author from India with the same title, it comes up quite a bit actually. Regardless, we don't have enough for notability with only one review. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not seen that the nom found one other article reviewing the book; I have found this [7].Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not too confident about this counting as a review. Is this a review or a plot summary for an online store? -1ctinus📝🗨 11:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 1ctinus. I wouldn't really count the PW article as a review--more like a publication announcement--given that it merely provides a summary of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the reviews given by the nom and the PW review above, we have two reviews, barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m asking if the second review actually counts towards WP:NBOOK, though. That website appears to me as a blog. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1ctinus: I would say it does count. It was originally in the print edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which WP:NBOOK#1 allows as a "newspaper article." See newspapers.com here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m referring to the curled up.com one. my apologies. The Pittsburgh one definitely counts. That’s my mistake. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with The Deceivers (Aiello novel) and The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel). The author Robert Aiello has been redlinked since the 2000s, barely notable, high risk of eternal stubbiness and walled WP:ORPHAN. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least two reviews. That is our standard. It meets it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 24 July 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. Carlin, Karen (2001-08-02). "Suspicions Abound in Two Mysteries". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The review notes: "Aiello, a retired Pittsburgh public relations executive, keeps things engrossing and moving at a fast pace, although sometimes you wish parts of the plot had more meat to them. The tale doesn't offer much flavor of Pittsburgh aside from the dropping of names of streets, neighborhoods and locations. But look beyond the cheesy cover, and you'll find an interesting hero in an adequate suspense story."
2. Behe, Regis (2001-07-22). "Robert Aiello offers sequel to 'Deceivers'". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The article notes: "But it's Aiello's new characters that provide the tension in 'Shadow in the Mirror,' particularly identical twins Lorraine and Lona Everett. The former is an ex-Rockette and past love interest of Montgomery. The latter, while physically identical to her sister, provides a sharp counterpoint in demeanor and motivation. It's Lona's unfettered ambition and greed that drive the storyline."
3. "Shadow in the Mirror". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The review provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "When the friend unexpectedly kills himself, his identical twin daughters (one of whom is Grant's ex) behave strangely, and an old enemy of Grant's gets in the way of investigating his friend's mysterious death when he tries to kill Grant."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shadow in the Mirror to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the second source Cunard found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceivers (Aiello novel)

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

Besides the review pre-existing review from the Pittsburgh post gazette in the article, I failed to find a second review that would satisfy WP:NBOOK. While this might look like an independent review at a first glance, it fails to be independent with this disclaimer here: "You have an indie book. We have several dozen talented reviewers. Let's just make it happen. Foreword offers honest, credible reviews of indie books, and we've been doing it for over 20 years." -1ctinus📝🗨 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a second review: Klett, Rex E. "The Deceivers." Library Journal, vol. 124, no. 13, Aug. 1999, p. 145. However, it is barely 100 words long, so YMMV whether this is "non-trivial" coverage. Astaire (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, there is no redirect target since the author does not have an article. Then, it comes down to whether there is enough source material to build an encyclopedic article about the book, and there is not. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Shadow in the Mirror and The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel). The author Robert Aiello has been redlinked since the 2000s, barely notable, high risk of eternal stubbiness and walled WP:ORPHAN. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 24 July 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. Heitman, Nelly (September–October 1999). "The Deceivers". Foreword Reviews. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The page notes: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer. No fee was paid by the publisher for this review. Foreword Reviews only recommends books that we love. Foreword Magazine, Inc. is disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255." My assessment is that the review is sufficiently independent of the publisher and the book since no fee was paid for the review. The providing of free copies of the books is common practice; for example, see this page from The New York Times Book Review which notes, "During the Covid-19 pandemic, The New York Times Book Review is operating remotely and will accept physical submissions by request only. If you wish to submit a book for review consideration, please email a PDF of the galley at least three months prior to scheduled publication to booksassistant@nytimes.com."
  The review notes: "As the final scenes unfold, readers will find themselves thrilled with who gets their just deserts—even though much has already been revealed—for author Aiello has done justice to developing Montgomery and the rest of the cast of players in this first, and most interesting, tale of suspense."
2. Klett, Rex E. (August 1999). "The Deceivers". Library Journal. Vol. 124, no. 13. p. 145. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "The basic premise of this first novel works fine, but Aiello wields a heavy hand, throws in unnecessary filler, and waffles with unwarranted explanation. An unnecessary purchase."
3. Gannon, Joyce (1999-09-14). "Dial M for Money< Former Ketchum Exec Hopes to Cash in With Mystery Book". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The article notes: "His book, "The Deceivers," is the story of a retired mentalist - a person who performs a form of magic based on mental tricks - who tries to help the Pittsburgh police solve a murder that takes place near the fountain at Point State Park. ... Aiello received about 60 rejection letters from East Coast book agents before he decided to pitch "The Deceivers" directly to small publishers. One of them, Creative Arts Book Co. of Berkeley, Calif., liked his 246-page manuscript and gave Aiello a one-book contract."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Deceivers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the second more reliable source from Cunard. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of the Tribe

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Unpublished books can be notable, but I could barely find any coverage of this book during WP:BEFORE. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Philosophy, Spirituality, and Psychology. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the current sources are listed as unreliable on WP:RSPS. I can't find anything reliable enough to even mention in Robert Anton Wilson that he was working on this book before his death. hinnk (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The book was never published, and I can't find SIGCOV in an RSes. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse guidebooks

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

The guidebooks themselves are not notable by any GNG measure. Buffyverse and buffy itself, yes, but not these guidebooks. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidebooks can be used as sources, but aren't noteworthy to be written about themselves. They are like the pre-internet version of a TV show's official web presence. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do these books constitute a series, or are they just a collection of unrelated books? If not, there's surely somewhere this content can be merged, even if a BEFORE (was one done?) didn't find anything. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I wonder if there are reviews for the individual books. We know that there is at least one for the Watcher's Guide Vol. 2 because it is linked in the article. I am not sure if the other links are reliable sources. If there were, then this list might just be the place to collect them under WP:CSC, where the individual entries of a list themselves fail the notability criterea, but secondary sources exist to cover them. It is also the case that The Buffyverse Catalog (and to a lesser degree The Whedonverse Catalog) as a serious independent source dedicates chapters to the guidebooks, so it's not like there was no coverage. Another secondary source is Undead TV : Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which analyzes "texts such as The Sunnydale High Yearbook and The Watcher's Guide", and thus pretty much Buffyverse guidebooks as a group, as well as guidebooks together with novels, opening up the opportunity to merge this with List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels (and possibly renaming it to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer books) in case keeping this separate is not wanted. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Buffyverse novels and rename it List of Buffyverse books. More appropriate merge target since both lists cover Buffy and Angel books. --Mika1h (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the list could be rather be renamed to List of Buffyverse literature if the AFD about the magazine closes as merge. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that could be merged in, too. Sunnydale High Yearbook survived an AfD earlier this year, but might well be better presented in such a combined article. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 July 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 merge‎ to Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation. czar 21:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation (novella)

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

While I am reasonably sure that the (also unreferenced...) Uplift Storm trilogy can be rescued (all three books that compose it meet NBOOK, see ISFDb), I fear this novella does not merit a stand-alone article and for now should be redirected to the trilogy it is a part of. What we have here is just a pure plot summary and my BEFORE failed to find anything of value (see also ISFDb with zero linked reviews...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh The signal/noise ratio on these searches is terrible, even throwing 'brin' in as another search term. I see nothing obvious on Scholar. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather surprised to find we had a stand-alone article on this and tried to clean it up a few years ago. I think it could be merged into the Uplift Storm Trilogy, which isn't all that long. I'm sure there must be sources for that article, Brin is a very well known author and the Uplift series is one of his major works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation - While the three main books in the trilogy each look to pass WP:NBOOK individually, this spinoff novella does not really seem to have much coverage. Even sources discussing the trilogy don't really seem to mention it much, that I have been able to find. While this article really does not have much in the way of sourced information, I think we can assume that the plot summary is using the novella itself as the source, so I would not be opposed to expanding the section on the main Uplift Storm trilogy to have more than a sentence of plot description. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation, which is barely demonstrating its notability. These are stronger as a group. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I found a review of the anthology in PW that mentions the novella, but it doesn't really provide a SIGCOV review. There's also a review of the anthology in Kirkus, but it doesn't mention Temptation. Chicago Public Library also shows reviews from Library Journal and Booklist, though again, these don't mention Temptation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:30, 27 July 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.

Literature proposed deletions