Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Paul Jessup (writer) (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Two book reviews [1] and [2], there might be more. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the PW review to the article. Haven't added the other as it is just one sentence. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Try [3] Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added that to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw (as nom) - two reviews found by Oaktree b, article meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We still need at least some material to source the biographical stuff. Or, it could just be removed.

  I found more reviews, including another one in PW and one in The Future Fire [4] Here is a shorter one in Reactor (magazine). The next one is from Wired, but is primary, starting off with "My friend Paul Jessup": [5] Had you heard about Werewolf News? Me neither. (Blog, not reliable.) Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, one of the above-cited reviews is a Kirkus Indie review, which does not count towards notability per WP:KIRKUS. On the other hand, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, mentioned in the nomination, is most certainly a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Religion of Mohammed (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:NOTBOOK. I can find no sources on the book or the author of the book, other than catalogue or sales listings. Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keturi Brūkšniai (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)

Does not pass GNG, sources inadequate for a main space page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sources I can find referencing this book are things like book catalogues, so this does not pass GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An H. P. Lovecraft 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)

Non-notable encyclopedia. --Viennese Waltz 07:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: can't find any sources either Mrfoogles (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: created in 2006 with probably original research analysis, still unsourced (except to the book itself) today Mrfoogles (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several reviews on ProQuest: One in Library Journal (ProQuest ID 196790216), one in Choice magazine (PQ 225716546), possibly reviewed (I can't see if it's an actual review or just saying This Book Was Published, but it says it was a review) in College & Research Libraries News (PQ 203713400), full review in the New York Review of Science Fiction (PQ 2152382677). And that was just a light search on ProQuest, I would guess a few more if I was more thorough, but this is enough for GNG and NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:49, 9 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. The sources found by PARAKANYAA in Library Journal, Choice, College & Research Libraries News, and The New York Review of Science Fiction.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Brothers: Private (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:NOTBOOK with no independent third-party coverage. Article has been nothing but unsourced fancruft since its 2006 creation. If not deletion, then a redirect to The Blues Brothers will do. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: if sources are found content can be added to Blues Brothers Mrfoogles (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wholly unreferenced and failing Wikipedia:Notability for 17.97 years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Blues Brothers. Doing a search, there is some newspaper coverage but I didn't find enought to convince me that the subject meets GNG. I'll add a source or two so there will be some cited content. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Blues Brothers 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) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative title (publishing) (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)

Duplicate topic of Subtitle (titling). — Moriwen (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Subtitle (titling) - the information in the 3rd paragraph is not in that article and it is a nice bit of book history. Also, a redirect from Alternate title to Subtitle would be useful. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same thing as subtitling? This appears to me to be discussing a distinct if similar phenomenon. A merge might be OK anyway though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought, but the "OR" titles are covered in Subtitle (titling). I checked for definitions in "Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts : thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge University Press" (a key work on the various parts of books), but may have missed it because the index of that book is (ironically!) very bad. I did find one source in G books that makes the distinction between alternate and sub-title. The problem is that the Subtitle (titling) article would need to be re-written and that article is a mess and lacks sources. Maybe it's best to leave this one as is and consider it more authoritative than the sentences about "OR" titles in the Subtitle (titling) article. I'll think on that. Lamona (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Fair enough, I support a merge. It seems a distinct though highly overlapping topic, so it's probably for the best. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either merge or keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After PARAKANYAA's comment I decided to reconsider. I conclude now that the Subtitle (titling) article is wrong to include alternate titles (especially to the extent that it does). I found additional sources for this article that define the difference between subtitles and alternate titles, but have not yet found any to verify the statement that use of alternate titles declined in the 19th century. I will keep looking for that. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PARAKANYAA's comments. Seems like a valid, notable article.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (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)

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refer to: Don't cite WP42 at AfD and Checkout 1, 2,3 and 4 among others

  217.165.5.17 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum, where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.

• Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.

The nominator acts as if he owns Wikipedia content through determining what should be written and not written about him or according to his wish, he's hence abusing and misusing; in guise, several Wiki policies and contradicting the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). I am therefore convinced and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that this nomination was selfishly made in bad faith against the Wikipedia foundation Mission, Purpose and Terms of Use including Wikipedia:Assume good faith and deliberately violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies 217.165.5.17 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep in accordance with the available reliable sources (WP:RS) and the criteria outlined in Book Sources (WP:BOOKCRIT#1), as the references meet the required standards for accuracy, credibility, and editorial quality.2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion.5.31.71.51 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 5.31.71.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Basing on the fact that was adopted by the Ugandan Ministry of Education through its NCDC and recommended for use in Secondary and higher institutions of Learning, It got an award though this is only talked about in Uganda, I find many substantial postive reviews on Amazon and I find many references linking to several libraries for schools and Universities in Uganda.102.85.51.233 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 102.85.51.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hamis Kiggundu: Coverage I can find is only about the individual, nothing about his book. I'd redirect or merge a few lines into his article there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]