This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature/archive 2

Genesis (Dev novel) (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)

Based on my BEFORE, this doesn't meet NBOOK. I have done a general search through Google, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. I also looked on Kirkus, Booklist, the New York Times, and Publishers Weekly. I found no reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. The editor seems to have a history of making some fairly promotional edits as a whole, so I am curious if there is any WP:COI going on here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and reads as LLM nonsense. Also could not find any sources. Astaire (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a 2025 novel about a brilliant billionaire scientist with the initials E.M. involving artificial intelligence self-published on Amazon? I'm shocked, shocked to hear it has no RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like AI-generated WP:PROMO. Madeleine (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Arzulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is an autobiography made by User:Hamid Arzulu in 2010. A quick Google search revealed nothing that could show that this person satisfies the notability guidelines. The two sources listed in the article were made by people with a conflict-of-interest to him. Hence I think it should be deleted. Norbillian (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Poetry, Science, and Azerbaijan. Norbillian (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literary work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page is just a dictionary entry, and doesn't cover any ground not covered by Literature. It was created as a stub in 2005 and remained unexpanded for a year before being converted into a redirect. It stayed a redirect for almost 20 years before @Piotrus changed it back into a stub. Except for some category maintenance, it hasn't been expanded. It needs to go back to being a redirect. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a stub, with plenty of potential for development, as seen from the sources cited (the topic is notable, with plenty of WP:SIGCOV, and is the main article for Category:Literary works). Which is a different topic from literature (a bit more narrow - it's like saying we don't need article on car, because we have automotive industry...). It exists as an article in 13 other Wikipedias. It simply needs to be expanded. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP (or explicitly: WP:IMPATIENT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded how? What's a thing that's a "literary work" but not "literature"? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The concept of literature and a literary work are related but distinct ideas in literary studies. Literature is a broader concept encompassing not just literary works but also theories, genres, traditions, and critical perspectives on literature (ex. discussions about what qualifies as literature, its purpose, and its role in society). Literary Work is a more narrow concept, and refers to a specific piece of literature, such as a novel, poem, play, or essay. If you need an example. Concepts like steampunk, poetry, or rhyme are part of literature, but are not literary works. Literary works are specific works like [name a random book or poem here]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your automotive analogy is faulty. We have novel, short story, play, poetry, etc. for literature. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Just not seeing the separation here. Everything could be covered at literature. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hyperbolick The article is currently being expanded. Do take a look. Also pinging @Astaire, @Clarityfiend _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I don't think it's possible to expand this article any further without creating redundancy with Literature. Astaire (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect because, as I have noted above, there are already articles on the various types of literary works, which are listed at Literature#Types. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is possible to expand the article. And clearly some of you would be amazed at the amount that the world has written trying to define what a work is, and having wild disagreements with one another to the extent that they don't even agree about abstractions. literary work is to literature as work of art is to art and musical work is to music, to put it somewhat simplistically. Moreover there are several other definitions of literature (e.g. scientific literature, or the literature of a particular country or language) that do not apply to literary works; which our literature article is truly terrible at explaining, making it seem like they are the same thing to people who haven't read (for starters) Raymond Williams, Peter Lamarque, or Nie Zhenzhao on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody refers to a scientific paper as a literary work. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, @Clarityfiend. That's exactly what Uncle G is saying. -- asilvering (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Clarityfiend You have never heard of ethnofiction? Not being sarcastic, it's pretty niche. But I wager that this subfield invalidates your argument here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's expandable, then somebody would have expanded it by now. Find something, anything, to say about "literary work" that isn't redundant with "literature". Even one sentence would be enough to make your case. But if you can't write that one sentence, why even argue for saving the article? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, it existed only for a few weeks (as a stub). Second, a lot of very notable but a bit abstract concepts don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Third, you are conviniently ignoring the fact that a dozen+ wikipedias are prefectly happy to have articles on this (and literature), and nobody there is seeing the need to merge or delete them. Fourth, it seems Uncle G is expanding this right now. Please do take a picture of you WP:TROUTing yourself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments civil. If you can't be bothered, I can't be bothered to engage with you. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a joke, please. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If my last comment was a bit off, sorry. That said, I believe WP:TROUT applies to this nom. As well as a failure of carrying out a WP:BEFORE, or even reviewing the refs present in the article at the time it was nominated, each of which deals with the concept of "literary work" in a way that clearly meets WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make my share of silly mistakes on Wikipedia. But not this time. I took care to describe how this stub went unexpanded for a whole year, spent 20 years as a redirect, then another four months as an unexpanded stub. You chose to ignore all that and make fun of me. I'm not going to engage with you further. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since in your post above you contradict yourself, treating four months as an entire year - yeah, I don't think there's much else I can say except what I already did. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - User:Uncle G has now expanded the article and its potential has become evident. My concern is that the article, due to the possible arguments about its scope, might become a magnet for controversy and use up editor time unproductively. If we follow Peter Lamarque, this page might have a solid topic but how many people follow Lamarque? EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this discussion would benefit from a brief summary of what content might belong here but would not belong at the literature article. It would make it easier to make an informed decision about the merits of having a stand-alone article on the topic "literary work" (i.e. make a WP:PAGEDECIDE call). TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TompaDompa, could this be it? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I'm asking. "The article can be expanded with this" is a partial answer, so to speak—are there other things it could also be expanded with? Or contrarily, could that instead be covered in the other article? TompaDompa (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, literary work is a subset of a broader concept of literature (just like, let's say, science fiction film is a subtopic of science fiction). Here, we can discuss some topics (related to what is or isn't literary work, what are their characteristics, etc.) more broadly. For example, the idea that most scientific work is not literary work - encyclopedic nugget of information that does not need to be present in article on literature. And various other things mentioned in the article here, not mentioned in literature. Up to an including various definitions and disagreements regarding the very concept of literary work, which Uncle G discusses in his write up - important stuff that has little need of being merged or discussed extensively in article on literature (where at best a brief summary of this can be included). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My answer below, as to "other things it could also be expanded with", would be "an additional thousand years of arguing about what is and is not a literary work," for which I can particularly think of material from the 18thC and the 1920s. (Also some material on whether letter collections are literary works.) In addition to adding sections on specific periods/debates, I think that would also lend itself to a section on commonly-cited characteristics of literary works, e.g., complex or elevated language; moral improvement of readers; non-commercial or non-political content; etc. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ignore all rules for the bigger picture. I'm absolutely certain that our core readership - secondary school and college students - will be looking for this article. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the current state of the article now shows, there is a large and somewhat exhausting body of scholarship debating what constitutes a "literary" "work". Getting into the details of this definition at literature would weigh that article down, as it is tasked with the already-large problem of summarizing everything else about literature. I think it would be useful to treat this as a spin-out of the current "Definitions" section at literature; accomplishing that effectively would expand literary work even further with a longer historical overview of these debates, since they didn't begin in the 20thC. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) (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)

Not a notable book in Nepal. Sources are not reliable. As a book lover, I have never heard this name and its author. This is one of the Seventh articles Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) , mirty diary, Sex desire and Taboo, Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Mochan, Running from the Dreamland the editor has made in a row on different books written by Tulsi Acharya. This attempt of writing articles on such books which is hardly heard in Nepalese context raises suspicion on interest of editor Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of resources and independent sources added as you suggested. Thank you for the guidance. Traillek (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Running from the Dreamland. This book's author appears to be using paid reviews and other suspicious activity, as I mentioned over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulasi Acharya. But disregarding that, this article has absolutely no reason to exist because it is about the translation of another book (Running from the Dreamland) into another language. We don't create separate articles for translations. The notability of RFTD can be discussed in a separate AFD. Astaire (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacy Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article appears to be promotional in nature and does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. It lacks independent, reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage outside of marketing materials. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage of this particular concept, and very weird subject matter. The study of how white supremacy can manifest in workplaces??? Followed by some traits that can lead to it like... perfectionism? Very, very niche topic, and imo loosely pulling strings together. jolielover♥talk 08:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes this is a weird subject, but please look at the source in the article by Ryan Grim and his blog post, "The author of a profoundly consequential document says people are getting it all wrong". I started a section on its influence and reception; this is certainly not a promotional article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concept of "white supremacy culture" (lowercase) is clearly notable, with multiple academic articles that have significant coverage of this topic:
  • Decentering whiteness in libraries: relational work for an inclusive culture
  • Revealing the archive, reckoning with the past: inclusive approaches to institutional history
  • Revealing white supremacy culture in an organization that supports queer and trans youth

I'm ambivalent about whether the article should be about Okun's paper, or about the broader concept (which is largely based on the paper). Regardless, the subject is notable: it has also received non-trivial coverage in a series of Reason articles [3] [4] [5] [6] and elsewhere [7] [8] [9] [10]. Astaire (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references cited either include only trivial mentions of the essay, focus on the author and not the essay, or are biased opinion pieces referencing the essay in passing as part of a broader attack on the notion of DEI. It seems the author might well meet WP:GNG, and a section on the essay could be appropriate there (this approach is suggested for books). But the essay on its own does not seem to warrant a stand-alone article. Mgruhn (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you engage with the academic sources I provided above? All of them define/explain Okun's idea of "white supremacy culture" and use it as their primary framework of analysis:

  • This case study explores two projects undertaken at a liberal arts college: a working group and a credit-bearing course intended to reckon with racist, xenophobic or otherwise harmful materials in the college archive. Both projects were informed by the authors' engagement with Tema Okun's White Supremacy Culture [11]
  • This case study presents the development and implementation of a library-wide reading group to discuss Okun's (2021) White Supremacy Culture Characteristics through relational meetings [12]
  • A few weeks before the first Zoom meeting, Candace shared the Jones and Okun workbook (2001) on white supremacy culture with Érica and Shannyn. The three authors reviewed the workbook and considered whether this framework matched or explained what they experienced with the RY organization. [13]

  There are other examples as well, these are just the first three I saw that offered SIGCOV of the concept.

  I wouldn't support a rewrite about the author, as I'm not certain Okun is notable independently of the document. Astaire (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's actually unclear what this article is about, specifically.

  The article itself, and the third academic article you shared, describes the work in question as a "bulleted list" from a 2001 workbook.

  The author's website, cited by the article, describes an essay "originally written and published in 1999."

  The second academic source you shared appears to be about a 2021 followup work.

  If the author is not notable, perhaps it would make sense to merge this into Diversity, equity, and inclusion, with a broader discussion of the academic underpinnings of DEI? Or, as you suggested, a single article about the topic rather than this specific essay. In any case, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think this may be an instance where keeping discussion of all the related scholarly works in a single article "where the relationships between them can be better appreciated" is appropriate. Mgruhn (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I was going to make that point in my original comment. It seems like the essay was originally written in 1999 by Okun, then included in a 2001 workbook with a co-author Kenneth Jones, then revised by Okun in 2021. So these articles technically aren't referring to the same document, which is why I think an article about the concept is more workable. Astaire (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the references cited either include only trivial mentions of the essay, focus on the author and not the essay, or are biased opinion pieces referencing the essay in passing as part of a broader attack on the notion of DEI. This is not accurate. Just look at the Ryan Grim piece, "Tema Okun on Her Mythical Paper on White Supremacy". This is an in depth piece about the infamous paper, showing notability right there on the paper not the author. Other articles are about DEI done wrong, not an attack on DEI itself. And this is about the same document which has been updated in 2021. The paper itself is notable for how it has circulated and influenced progressive organizations. The concept could be included in the article on diversity training, but this wikipedia article is on the infamous paper. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the sources cited by Astaire would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with Astaire's assertion that the subject passes WP:GNG. There is WP:SIGCOV in the sources mentioned, and those sources are reliable. In addition, the article does not appear promotional to me.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal (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)

Not a notable book. Insufficient sources. Not a single neutral source. First reference is about some other Novel written by author. References 2,3 are not reputed media outlets in Nepal. Ref 4 cant be used as a supportive source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Disability, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a few more independent sources the editor suggested. Thank you for such a helpful community to guide the content/article creator like me. Traillek (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now the references look strong. 168.20.179.92 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article's only hope of meeting WP:NBOOK is criterion #1: the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. However, it fails. Reviewing the current sources:
  • Source 1: the author's bio on the publisher's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 2: the author's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 3: an op-ed by the author that only mentions SGDN in the bio at the end. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 4: an article about a different book written by the author that mentions SGDN once. SGDN is not the subject.
  • Sources 5 and 7: The same book review of SGDN posted on two different websites, which are of questionable reliability. Regardless, this would only count as one "published work" for the purposes of NBOOK.
  • Source 6: an scholarly article written by the author before SGDN came out. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 8: a scholarly article written by the author of SGDN that contains a single citation of SGDN. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 9: The book itself. Not independent.

Astaire (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajlukshmee Debee Bhattacharya (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)

Apart from the cited links, I couldn't find much info on the web supporting notability. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Her name is often given just as Rajlukshmee Debee (same birth year established here). It looks like she got an obituary in Indian Literature. On the one hand that is kinda brief and by a friend (Debjani Chatterjee), but on the other it was published in a significant journal. here she is described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing". There's a dearth of coverage but some indications of significance. Will keep looking. This and this maybe have some review content? It looks like The Touch Me Not Girl got a couple of reviews ([14], [15]). I also imagine there might be more coverage in Bengali. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bengali version is a translation of the English article. She has some mentions but not enough to establish notability. Herinalian (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackers Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a book series, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, books are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them (book reviews, etc.) -- but this makes no real notability claim over and above "book that exists", and the only true "reference" here is a deadlinked primary source that wasn't support for notability even when it was live, while the other footnote is merely a clarifying note rather than a source.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in this genre of literature than I've got can actually find sufficient sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Patrick Carman. I cannot find sources to support notability for the individual books or the series as a whole. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The first book in the series meets WP:NBOOK #1 via these reviews in Kirkus and SLJ: [16] [17]. The second book doesn't appear to, as I can only find this SLJ review: [18]. There's also a WIRED article that discusses the series as a whole: [19]. However it comes across as fairly promotional and a single source about the series isn't enough for the series to meet WP:GNG.

My instinct is to rework the article to be about the first book in the series. Astaire (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: found two more brief reviews for the second book: [20] [21]

So both books appear to meet NBOOK #1, but only as independent entities. Astaire (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: iirc, the issue of the notability of series with weakly-notable books has been discussed before in other literature-related AfDs. I think this fits the situation well; instead of having two weakly-notable books, we can just have an article about the series as a whole. See the Merging to broader subjects section of WP:NBOOK for a bit more on this. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with this. With series, the thing is that in most cases there isn't going to be a ton of coverage for the series as a whole. It's usually a case of coverage for the individual books with some general mention of the series progressing. It's also super common for a series to have only 1-2 notable entries - not all of which are going to be the first book in the series. As far as series notability goes, if there is coverage for the individual entries then that establishes notability for the series. It's one part of a whole - if the hand model for the first Twilight were to ever pass NBIO and have an article, the article would be on the person - not her hands, even though her hands would be what she would be best known for.

  The general consensus has been that in cases like this, the best option is typically to have an article on the series. Individual entries on the books runs a huge risk of not being comprehensive or containing so much info on the series that it takes over the article. There's also a risk of it just not appearing cohesive, for the article to be about the third book and then to have a huge section about the series as a whole. I've found that creating a series page greatly decreases the chances of someone trying to create individual book pages. I think part of that is because when people read series they tend to think of it as a series, rather than the individual entries, if that makes sense. So their need for information will be sated by the series article rather than reading an article about the third book in the series. It also takes care of issues where the books are weakly notable (but still pass NBOOK by the skin of their teeth) - we can compile those into a single whole and have it be a bit more informative than a redirect to a bibliography section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's been established that the individual books technically pass NBOOK and are individually notable. However the coverage for them is very light as a whole. With this in mind, it makes much more sense to retain a series article than to split this into two extremely weak articles that would contain a lot of the same information as far as the interactive elements go. There's enough sourcing that a redirect to the author's article seems a little disingenuous - there's enough here to cobble together a small article - I could probably expand it a bit more with a release section that covered when and where the books were released, and by whom. (IE, if there are any foreign language translations and all of that.)

The coverage also gives me a very mild sense that there might be more, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that. It's a children's series, put out during a time where there were an exceptionally large amount of children's series - so the fact that this got any attention at all is kind of amazing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd support this solution as well. Astaire (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both books are weakly notable, and per WP:PAGEDECIDE, better to cover them as one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: for reasons outlined above. Each volume is marginally notable but it makes much more sense to cover these as a series per WP:PAGEDECIDE, even if it appears to be a series of two. (P.S. someone please move this to Trackers (series) upon closure of this AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lightly notable. ^Wiinter_U 23:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above (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)

Non-notable. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [22], and the other is a TechRadar article [23] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing NBOOK. Couldn't find any other potential sources. Even Higher and Beyond Frontiers should probably go too. Astaire (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Astaire above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion. I have WP:BEFOREd these and am unable to find sources to determine notability:

Even Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beyond Frontiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After a cursory search of coverage, it is pretty clear this book is extremely niche and has very, very little secondary coverage. There is one source that gives the book a mention [24] but that is essentially it. Any reviews of the book might help in establishing notability but otherwise essentially all of the article's sources are primary or local, which don't factor into its notability. It lacks the widespread and significant secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Obviously leaning towards delete, but more discussion on the two bundled articles as well as possibly redirecting should be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. High Above and Even Higher are still a delete for me. Redirecting Beyond Frontiers to SES (company) is a reasonable ATD given that it is a trademark. Astaire (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]