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

San Sombrèro

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

Nonnotable parody travel guide. I found only a single reasonable ref - Altenmann >talk 09:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
flap copy
, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Sources

Fraser, Benjamin (June–December 2007). "San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups: Henri Bergson's theory of laughter and the problems of travel guide humour". doi:10.3167/jys.2007.081207. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26 – via Gale
.
The review notes: "Travel writers Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Stich are at it again. In their new guide to the fictional land of San Sombrero (San Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC, 2006) they serve up a tantalising platter of tropicalizations, exoticized culinary fixations, superficial politico-economic analyses and a hefty dose of feel-good in-group reinforcement, all for 'the undiscerning traveller' (cover). But before you rush out to buy San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups, you might take a moment to consider why this type of work is considered humorous. Although you may be tickled by its approach and impressed by its slick appearance, the guide is no less problematic for taking on a fictionalized topic."

"Travel books: Journeying cover to cover". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The review notes: "This guide to a land whose main attraction is its lack of extradition treaties is the latest offering in the Jet Lag series which brought us the hilarious Molvania and Phaic Tan. I don't think it's quite as funny as its predecessors - though that may be because having chuckled my way through both I knew what to expect - but it's still a delight to read. ... Bad taste? Sure. That's the point."

Larsen, Alexis (2007-04-27). "'Jetlag Travel Guide'". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The review notes: "If you're not taking a vacation this summer, then you're dreaming of taking one. Either way, you'll get a lot of laughs out of the Jetlag Travel Guide series. ... Of course, it is all these things — and more — making this sun drenched republic one of the most exciting travel destinations in all of Central America." Go to www.jetlagtravel.com and get a taste of these books for yourself. Just be prepared to laugh. A lot."

"Cocktails and coups". Geelong Advertiser. 2006-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The review notes: "First there was Molvania, followed by Phaic Tan. Now, welcome to San Sombrero, a land of carnivals, cocktails and coups. The third Jetlag Travel Guide comes once again from the fertile minds of the Working Dog Productions team. Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch have come up with the definitive guide to what you can expect if you go to South America. Well, sort of. San Sombrero, like Molvania and Phaic Tan, doesn't exist, but, in line with the first two, it can give you a definitive taste of a people and their culture. San Sombrero could be a smattering of Brazil mixed in with a pinch of Cuba and a dash of Mexico."

"Fun-filled break at Sombrero". ProQuest 321699023
.
The review notes: "San Sombrero, which is a follow-up to previous guides on Molvania and Phaic Tan, is promoted as a "land of carnivals, cocktails and coups". The guide, which comes with a convincing array of photographs, describes San Sombrerans as essentially laid-back people, so much so that the inaugural marathon race had to be abandoned as most of the field were still chatting several hours after the official start."

Owen, Katie (2006-12-10). "Paperbacks". ProQuest 309516600
.
The review notes: "This is a hilarious spoof travel guide to a fictional Central American country. Extremely lightheartedly, it satirises eco- and adventure-travellers and the way many guides gloss over negative aspects of a place. As well as ludicrous detailed descriptions of San Sombrero's culture, history and politics ('it boasts the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to be accused of war crimes'), there are useful symbols denoting everything from 'military installation' to 'illegal wildlife for sale'."

Chipperfield, Words Mark (2006-10-26). "Final Call". ProQuest 364294552
.
The review notes: "From the authors of Molvania and Phaic Tan comes San Sombrro: A Land Of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups (Jetlag, $29.95). Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch explore Central America's most politically incorrect nation. Its attractions include "tropical charms, an exotic lifestyle and lack of extradition treaties". San Sombrro is a place where the church permits animal sacrifice, school canteens sell rum and its most famous war criminal won a Nobel Prize. There are useful chapters on cigarette brands, bull fighting, feminism and the telephone system. Totally hilarious - even the contributor profiles are funny. Available at all silly bookshops."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow San Sombrèro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add there refs to the article. I honestly tried to find these refs in google, but found only one, which is now in the article. Something wrong with google search? (And I also found the book text in google archive). I did apply due diligence. - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Teenager's Dream: Why Do Fools Fall in Love

A Teenager's Dream: Why Do Fools Fall in Love (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)

I could find no secondary sources, ie reviews or commentary, about this book. Merge to Jimmy Merchant (as it is a memoir)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom; there doesn't seem to be any critical notice of this book. No reviews, no mentions in RS (or any media), other than what's given in the article. Sourcing used are sales listings and one media item that talks about it; neither of which helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what to say, but if it isn't notable enough. I guess it is MOST LIKELY to be deleted. However, I added some secondary source for the article but I don't know if that's enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NBOOK, found nothing on ProQuest/Google. At first glance, the tremg.info source added by Inajd0101 doesn't seem reliable. Other sources on article are not independent or are customer review sites. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy Merchant, the author, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
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) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oaktree b (talk · contribs), Inajd0101 (talk · contribs), and ARandomName123 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Jimmy Merchant per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? PARAKANYAA suggested a merge in the AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy Merchant: I believe that his memoir should be redirected since there are no secondary source that leads to notability when it comes to its own article, which is fair enough unfortunately. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica International Encyclopedia

Britannica International Encyclopedia (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)

No sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of
The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition (or create a separate section in that article for non-English editions). Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Battle of the Books

Oregon Battle of the Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:AUD are not an indication of notability. Astaire (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Events, Organizations, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Stevens, Janet (2015-02-20). "Column: In the Battle of the Books, everyone wins". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The editorial notes: "You might not have heard of the Oregon Battle of the Books, but for kids from 37 public and private schools in Deschutes County, it’s a big deal, and it’s coming up soon. ... Students across the state get lists of books geared to the competition’s three divisions, third through fifth grades, sixth through eighth grades and high school. There are 16 books on each of the lists for the younger two groups, and a dozen on the one for high schools. ... So I hope the Battle of the Books draws not only confirmed readers but also kids who’ve never really discovered the pleasure that comes from reading."

Himstreet, Kim (2017-02-15). "Reading becomes a competitive sport: Local school children duel in Oregon Battle of the Books". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The article notes: "OBOB was initiated in 2006 and modeled on Battle of the Books programs that have been operating in other states for up to 25 years. The first competitions in Oregon were during the 2007-08 school year. ... Each team comes up with a name (Read S'more, Moustache Winners and Slightly Radioactive Gummy Bears are just a few of this year's examples), and some wear team T-shirts or colors to their battles. Many use strategies such as dividing the required reading up amongst the team members to create subject matter experts, while others take extensive notes and get together after school to quiz one another."

Buxton, Matt (2011-04-17). "Brains and books team up at the Oregon Battle of the Books state finals". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The article notes: "Emotions ran high at the fifth annual Oregon Battle of the Books, a statewide reading and literacy competition for students grades 3 through 12 Saturday at Chemeketa Community College in Salem. The tournament, sponsored by the Oregon Association of School Libraries, was the culmination of nearly a year of preparation by dedicated students and librarians. Competitors were in three categories, third through fifth grade, sixth through eighth and ninth through 12th. Each group had a reading list of 16 books, from which questions were selected. In all, there were 45 student teams from both public and private schools throughout Oregon."

Woolington, Rebecca (2010-03-11). "Book Wars Come to High School: The popular reading competition opens to older students". The Register-Guard. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The article notes: "This year marks the first time that the popular reading competition, which made its name in middle and elementary schools across the state, has expanded to the high school level. During this weekend's regional competition at Springfield High School, The Bibliophiles will compete against winning teams from 12 high schools in Lane, Douglas and Coos counties. ... Most teams split the reading load of 16 books among their members, with each member becoming an "expert" on four or five books. Members of both The Bibliophiles and It's a Secret were required to participate for their honors literature course - but they insisted they would have taken part anyway."

Davis, Chelsea (2014-01-16). "Battle of the bookworms". The World. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
The article notes: "Students read 12 books to get ready — from John Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” to Gaby Rodriguez’s “The Pregnancy Project.” During the round-robin, “quiz bowl” type contest, the bookworms had to answer “In which book...?” and content questions. Teams huddled together, whispering excitedly to get the answer within 15 seconds. Their teammates mouthed the answers to each other in the audience."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Oregon Battle of the Books to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Oregonian and The Register-Guard are the largest and second largest newspapers in the American state of Oregon. These two sources, which provide significant coverage about the subject, meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cry of the Justice Bird

Cry of the Justice Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:NBOOK. Can't find any reviews, not even in PW/Kirkus/Booklist afaict. Please ping me if coverage can be found. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its author, Jon Haylett. A preliminary GNews + ProQuest lookthrough uncovered nothing for this 2007 title. Nominator made the right call in this case. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I found only a one sentence mention in an EBSCO resource stating the book won an award - "Jon Haylett's Royal Society of Literature prizewinner Cry of the Justice Bird." Still no sigcov. Maybe add that it won the award to Haylett's page? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, a prize from the Royal Society is the kind of thing that makes me think it should be notable. ...But actually I think that might be a mistake, and it was one of his short stories that won a prize, per this interview? Per the Royal Society site, his short story won in 2005 but I can't find evidence of other wins. In which case, still no hints of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Under Cross Examination

Gandhi Under Cross Examination (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)

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter. (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.) Coverage from two independent sources is enough per
WP:NBOOK. The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article. The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article. Astaire (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Astaire. And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an
unreliable source for notability. Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability, and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine. Encounter looks like a decent journal. My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh? I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.

Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage, there is just 1 dubious source and 1 semi-reliable source. NavjotSR (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
flap copy
, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources

"Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review". Humanism Ireland
reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland, Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".

Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009). "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination". Encounter. Vol. 70, no. 4.
ProQuest 216773616.
According to this link
:

Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940. In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.
Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance. In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.
The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215). It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book."

Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). "Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)". Vice. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media, I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype. In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ... I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Your first source Humanism Ireland fails
WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above. Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source. It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news?, I disagree that the Vice article is a "totally unreliable source". Cunard (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that.
WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I asked at
Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review, December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As noted here, there is a 1,582-word review of the
Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for
WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting
WP:NBOOK. The book has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability.

Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see
WP:NEXIST
.

You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources given above are more than enough for notability. Not liking this "conspiracy theory" isn't sufficient to have an article deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (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)

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:
review in Choice, proquest id 225800157

a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014

Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets
WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
flap copy
, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources

EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original
on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."

Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original
on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."

Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". ProQuest 225800157
.
The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."

Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". ProQuest 230077014
.
The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""

Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". Newspapers.com
.
The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."

Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."

Less significant coverage:

"Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4.
ProQuest 199666401
.
The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"

Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for
WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet
WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check. Orientls (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book review cited in the article and this [1], should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fathers of the Church

The Fathers of the Church (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)

Article appears to fail
WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the book exists! [2] [3] and there are reviews [4] [5] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Logos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and @Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per
WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@LEvalyn @Jclemens Can you share a link to that discussion? I am operating off the WP:NBOOK policy, which does not address series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require
WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
But each book having it's own article would be mad! Better to have them under one umbrella surely? — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dearth of reviews I'm not sure how many are notable on their own anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I take a look: yes. The reviews are specifically of these editions, and evaluate things like the editors' selection of sermons to include and the usefulness of the footnotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral on whether the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be renamed as The Fathers of the Church should redirect to Church Fathers, easily a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having had a chance to comb through some of the reviews, I'm seeing too much to justify either deletion, or articles about the individual books. As far as I can work out, all of the 100+ volumes has gotten at least one serious, scholarly review. If you look them up individually by title & translator you start to get clear NBOOK passes, e.g., the first two I tried, vol. 70 [6][7] and vol. 131 [8][9][10]. This appears to be a thoroughly notable series. As for the name, I am not excited about renaming but The Fathers of the Church (series) works for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Given the commentary here, I won't prolong the debate. Keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

Static Line (magazine) (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)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman

Expectations from the Muslim Woman (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)

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1231092174"