Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,561,218 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
==Literature==
==Literature==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Savage_Press}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quixote's_Cove}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quixote's_Cove}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring My Bell (webtoon)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring My Bell (webtoon)}}

Revision as of 20:32, 24 January 2024

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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.
  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:
Purge page cache watch


Literature

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Press

Savage Press (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)

It's been tagged as no sources since 2017, and an additional search of a local news database also had no hits. Fails WP:SIGCOV. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 15:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What do You think about this piece? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding something, but it looks like a single sentence about the publishing company, the rest is about an unrelated book the publisher wrote. I think that falls under 'trivial passing mention.' ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I altered my search parameters and found this interview with a long-standing blog, a mention here and another mention in the same publication I first found. None of these are awesome, but maybe together they could count for something? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that the article contradicts itself as to the date of the first publication. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think it would make more sense to make an entry focused on Mike Savage instead and just redirect this to a section on the publishing company, since he looks pretty prolific. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed Your train of thought, but in all honesty thoroughly searching for reviews of his Alphonse 'Dave' Davecki series of superior mystery book that seem to follow a sort of series brought up a total of zip reviews other than the mentions I have already found. While he may be prolific there's nothing going for that except for the blurbs in his books. What You found is actually from his own book, from his own publishing house, so isn't exactly a reliable source for WP. Maybe You'll have better luck or will just plain find something. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the only article I found with information about the company was "Small publishers survive, but don't thrive in Duluth, Minn." in 2004 (ProQuest 462151451) but it relies on Mike Savage's comments. S0091 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quixote's Cove

Quixote's Cove (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ring My Bell (webtoon)

Ring My Bell (webtoon) (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)

The subject does not appear to be notable. A quick search before the nomination turned up only appearances in "top 10 manhwa"–type lists, none of which have significant coverage about the subject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two reasonable discussions of it in Korean: [1][2]. toobigtokale (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Thanks for your comment! I'm working through machine translation here, so my assessments may not be wholly accurate, but I have reservations about these sources. Firstly, even though the articles have been published separately, a lot of their content is almost exactly the same, which gives me the impression that there's some paid promotion or press release copying happening. In any case, they don't seem to have any significant coverage of the subject of this article, so my notability concerns remain. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right; I didn't read in detail but they do overlap and seems like paid promotion. Lean delete now. toobigtokale (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus that improvements made since nomination are enough to assert notability. All deletion !votes were expressed prior to expansion, some subsequently withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura McGloughlin

Laura McGloughlin (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 GNG WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very minor mentions as the translator of a few books but nothing about the subject herself. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree - there is no indepth RS on the subject (either in the article or in a before search), and while there are RS review of the books she has translated, I don't see how these can apply to WP:NAUTHOR here. ResonantDistortion 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and other !votes above, a WP:BEFORE search returns nothing more than the same short 3-sentence "bio profiles" we find in the article itself. Nothing that reaches the expectations of WP:SIGCOV. I can't even find sources to support the text we have (like the subject's degree from UCC which doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere outside this article). WP:NAUTHOR, also, doesn't appear to be met. Guliolopez (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with regret, as not many translators to be found in here, but this probably does not qualify on the work, and certainly does not evidence it. Like ghost writers, translators have to be recognised as exceptional in some way, or have a massive body of published work, to have articles in Wikipedia, as they are not creating a personal artistic body of work, but working on others'. Some, of course, are recognised as going beyond "just translation", but they are the exception, and often are, or become, published original authors too. SeoR (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is much improved and now clearly asserts, and cites for, notable quality of translation. As I said originally, we could use more articles on translators. And I have done paid translation myself, and know both the limitations and the art that is sometimes called for - choosing words, never mind the flow and structure, can be a real challenge. And, frankly, some translations improve on the original. I've also heard a lot from authors about this (and don't even start on the more-common-than-we-realise world of ghost writing). All that said, I think the bar is higher than for wholly original work of quality - but anyway, this article now passes this bar. Thanks to the editor(s) who made this difference and facilitated retention. SeoR (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to respectfully disagree about reviews and translators. To put it bluntly, there's a ton of work that goes into translating a novel. A translator work, in a way, has them basically re-writing the book. Only they can't write it completely from scratch as they have to keep as close to the original source material while keeping the same content, intent, and flow. If anyone has ever translated, then you'll know that there's a lot of work involved with this because a lot can be lost in translation, even when you're doing something like translating a news article. The translator has to figure out how to do this without changing things too much - but also picking out the best word in the new language to fit the translation because sometimes it's not as easy as translating "gato" to "cat". The translator has to decide whether or not to pick a word with a similar meaning, translate it as literally as possible, or to leave the word "as is" and include a footnote. That's not even considering situations where a sentence or passage has a ton of nuance and double meanings. A bad translation can completely change the nuance, intent, and original meaning, as well as the plot as a whole. As this translator puts it, a good translation will make you forget that you are reading a translation entirely.
So what does this mean? Well... it kind of means that a review praising the author's writing is just as much for the translator as it is for the author because again, the interpreter has to re-write the novel. That's a huge amount of work because ultimately the original author didn't write their work in (for example) English. The translator did and what the reviewer is praising is the translator's interpretation of the author's work. It's why a review praising "evocative and atmospheric language" is just as much praising the translator as the author because it's the translator who chose to translate it that way.
I'm not saying this to argue for a keep, just that we need to look beyond a one sentence mention of the translator's name here. We need to consider what the review is saying about the sentence structure, descriptions, and so on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are some sources and I do think reviews should generally count towards notability as long as they discuss things like the language, sentence structure, and so on, but I don't see that we really have enough that go into depth about that. When I argue for or against notability I try to imagine how the article would fare if it were brought up for AfD in a year's time - would it still hold up to newer, fresher eyes? With this one, I can't really justify it. It's a shame but there's just not enough here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think McGloughlin is a creative professional according to WP:CREATIVE, and as I review and add sources to the article, she appears to have "played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work", and I am in the midst of reviwing whether "such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:CREATIVE#3 and sources added to the article - McGloughlin is a creative professional who has co-created multiple works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. The article also has a Reception section with two reviews that have a brief specific focus on her translations; overall, I think ReaderofthePack's first comment in this discussion helps explain why the usual notability guideline can apply here to support keeping this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have struck my delete vote per the excellent work Beccaynr has done on the article. ResonantDistortion 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded by the NAUTHOR body of work: 5 books with 2+ reviews each where the reviews are specifically of her translations. Glad to see so much sourcing added. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch (magazine)

Kitsch (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to David Pratt (Scottish journalist), without prejudice to early recreation if and when new sources support that. A reasonable ATD, well supported by the views expressed here. Owen× ☎ 16:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intifada – The Long Day of Rage

Intifada – The Long Day of Rage (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 do not believe that the content of this article is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books), as there are only 2 potentially reliable sources; RFC: Electronic Intifada is depreciated. As I do not believe that both sources can be counted towards the notability requirement, and as the original editor is unavailable, I would suggest a deletion.

Additionally, the use of RFC: Electronic Intifada by an author who does not appear to be an authority in their respective field as the primary source for the content of the book, meaning that the content cannot be sourced well. FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my first AfD, so anyone with more experience is very welcome to correct any errors made. Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: I believe you've performed all the steps correctly. In the future, you can try using Twinkle, which greatly simplifies the process. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will. Does it work on mobile, or do I need a desktop? FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting link above: "Twinkle is not yet compatible with the mobile skin Minerva Neue. However, someone has written a third party patch that you can install. Please follow the directions at User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile." and also: "You must use a supported web browser." and "If you're using Windows, and you're using a touchscreen, you may need to tap and hold the "TW" button in order to get the options to come up." (from Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I’ll try that next time, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed To Keep in light of the review mentioned below. (Yet another one would indeed help but, above all, the redirect and merge could allow expanding the page about Pratt. As other users wish, really. Both are OK, I think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America

Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America (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)

UPE spam for non notable book. Lacks reviews, none of the awards are major. UPE and notability tags removed without explanation or improvement so brought it here for discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it a bit better now? --Ouro (blah blah) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jasiqi

Ali Jasiqi (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google, Google news, WP:TWL, books, and scholar results in nothing that would support WP:GNG. —Sirdog (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No indication of notability, couldn't find sources on Google searchWasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. There appears to be consensus here that a redirect is not appropriate from this article. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic character (fiction)

Generic character (fiction) (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)

Has essentially been unreferenced since its inception, and seems to be something of a duplicate of stock character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I was going to close this as a Redirect but there is an objection so I'm relisting the discussion to see if there is more or less support for that option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I get lots of hits for this, all of which use it in the obvious sense of talking about various works of fiction (or bodies of such work) as a whole, not about single characters. And the redirect is plainly wrong: a stock character has a particular but standardized nature, while being generic implies (ironically) a character without character, more or less like the background extras in a crowd scene in film. I think this is just made up. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. A redirect to stock character would not be appropriate - that is not what the article as currently written describes, and I can find no evidence that "generic character" is used to mean stock character Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete (and indeed, not a single participant supporting outright deletion rather than an alternative), and a policy-compliant argument that the available sources are sufficient to support notability separate from that of the author. BD2412 T 02:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Story (Minogue book)

My Story (Minogue book) (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It could possibly be merged/redirected to Dannii Minogue as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how citing book reviews that (in two out of three cases) report the book to be non-notable is evidence of notability. (An honest question about WP norms, not a snarky attack. If multiple RS review a book and say in effect “this is not an important book” does the fact that they covered it at all make it notable?) Llajwa (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llajwa: The quality of the book isn't relevant to the notability; a bad book can be just as notable as a good one. If the book was a best-seller, then it's likely to be notable. Critics saying it's not important do contribute to notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs: Granted that a bad book can be notable, but does RS coverage which says only that the book is bad, in the absence of other evidence, establish notability? If newspapers print brief reviews of a celebrity's book saying "don't waste your time on this pointless book" - and there's no other coverage and sales are poor - would those reviews by themselves constitute notability?
It seems analogous to children of celebrities - profiles of the parent will likely mention the children by name, but that in itself does not make those children notable. Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, two of the reviews mention that the book was a "bestselling autobiography." Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review soures brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 January 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. Harris, John (2010-12-13). "Why celebrity memoirs rule publishing". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "While we're here, consider also the enticing kick-off passage of My Story, by Dannii Minogue ... This does not quite get me hooked, though I persevere. But more of that later. ... I begin with Minogue's My Story, because she is the one contemporary celeb author I have met: at a west London branch of TGI Fridays circa 1997, when we fell into a weird and bitter argument about whether Robbie Williams should be blamed for losing himself in drink and drugs after exiting Take That. I sympathised with him; she, like a true show-must-go-on veteran of an Australian institution called Young Talent Time, did not – and it all got rather heated and shouty. Which is more than can be said for My Story, in which most of her anecdotes fall flat, like the kind of pub stories that are followed by pregnant silences."

    2. "Dannii Minogue: My Story". Evening Standard. 2010-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "Considered a snip for an advance of just £300,000, this one proves to be a snore. Minogue thanks “book writing partner” Terry Ronald, her gay friend and music producer, which makes the passages starring him, presumably also written by him, read oddly. ... Otherwise, it’s bland and uninformative."

    3. Keenan, Amanda (2010-12-07). "Book Review: My Story - Dannii Minogue". The West Australian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "That's what I'd say if she didn't come off so bloody likeable and this book wasn't so frightfully fascinating (in a fluffy, fly-on-the wall way, of course). Call me a tragic pop culture vulture but My Story is 300-odd pages of mindless celebrity deliciousness."

    4. Dugdale, John (2010-12-11). "Celebrity memoirs for Christmas - review". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "Minogue, in her co-written, predictably perky My Story (Simon & Schuster, £18.99), comically depicts virtuous puzzlement as her sole response to other celebs' misbehaviour, as when rival X Factor judge Sharon Osbourne berates her; luckily, though, she somehow remembers Osbourne's stream of insults perfectly. Image is all for Katie and Dannii, yet both books strangely have gobsmackingly dreadful photos."

    5. Hornery, Andrew (2010-09-25). "Mum-in-law's the word for Minogue". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "While the tome will probably never make into the annals of the great literary contributions of our time, Minogue plans to leave her mark, especially within the genteel Sydney society circles McMahon moved in. Indeed Minogue has been spruiking the book in Britain this week and paying a lot of attention to the significant portion devoted to her marriage and divorce from Julian McMahon."

    6. "On the Coffee Table". The Mercury. 2010-11-26. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "This book is juicy and for one main reason: It details, for the first time, Minogue"s marriage to Julian McMahon and her lack of relationship with his mother, Lady Sonia McMahon. ... A surprisingly enjoyable read. "

    7. "Dannii - tell all - shocks - Dannii Minogue". Northern Territory News. 2010-10-12. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "In her new autobiography My Story, Minogue incorrectly spells the name of Australia's most famous street and the place that made her sister Kylie a household name. ... Released in Australia on November 2, My Story is a candid revelation of Minogue's rise from Johnny Young Talent Time to a judge on Britain's X Factor, watched by more than 16 million people."

    8. Adams, Cameron (2010-12-09). "Dannii Happy Returns". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "In her candid autobiography My Story she reveals the drama behind announcing her pregnancy last year. ... The chapter about how Lady Sonia McMahon treated her while married to her son Julian is titled 'A Lady in name only'. ... The book also delves into Minogue watching her sister survive cancer while losing her best friend to the disease."

    9. Scicluna, Sarah-Kate (2010-11-20). Sprogis, Elvira (ed.). "On the Shelf - Books". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "From shocking Lady Sonia McMahon mother-in-law tales to a tug-at-the-heart-strings story of losing her best friend to cancer, there's more to Dannii Minogue than most people give her credit for. From this raw and deeply personal work, it's clear that she's done the hard yards. I was always a Kylie fan. I still am. But boy, am I a Dannii fan now, too."

    10. Coster, Alice; Webber, Nicola; McMahon, Kate (2010-12-22). "It's Dannii's story warts and all". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "A beaming Dannii Minogue was ready to tell and sell her bestseller My Story yesterday. ... Minogue's autobiography has been a huge hit in Britain, where she has been praised for not glossing over difficult points in her life."

    11. McGovern, Derek; Shaw, John (2010-10-08). "Filth should cover it - Result!". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "I picked up My Story by Dannii Minogue yesterday and I was stunned - I didn't know she knew anything about my story. In it she charts her brave fight to emerge from sister Kylie's shadow, her rise to popularity as an X Factor judge, and her status as one of the most desirable women in pop."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Story to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hazaras

The Hazaras (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)

Delete and redirect to Hazaras. Fails WP:NBOOKS. As part of WP:BEFORE, checked sourcing on interlanguage links as well but failed to turn up sources or coverage that would meet notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Longhornsg: all the articles in other languages were created a few years after the English one and they seem a copy of it. I would have initially suggested that, based on the lack on online sources, the book fail to meet notability criteria. On the other hand, it's a rather old (1989) specialized book, which might have been mentioned in offline sources around the time of publishing. It surely makes no sense to have two separate entries for the author, Hassan Poladi, and the book, but I can't decide which of the two pages should be redirected. --Broc (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:NBOOKS.RomanRaju (talk) 11:23, 22 January 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. Canfield, Robert L. (May 1990). Siegfried, Mary Ann (ed.). "The Hazäras, Hassan Poladi, Stockton CA, Mughal Publishing Co., 1989. Pp. xvi + 431, index. (Distributed through Avenue Books, 840 W. Benjamin Holt Drive, Stockton, CA 95207) $19.95". Afghanistan Forum. Vol. 18, no. 3. Asia Society. pp. 34–35. ISSN 0889-2148. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.

      From this 1 December 2016 obituaryInternet Archive for Mary Ann Siegfried, the editor of the Afghanistan Forum: ""After two years, she returned home to Ohio via freighter and soon set out for New York City, where she landed a job with the Asia Society. The nonprofit’s mission was to introduce Americans to Asia, “since most people didn’t even know where it was,” she told The Star. Through editing the society’s newsletter on Afghanistan, The Af­ghanistan Forum, for more than 25 years, she became an expert on that country.""

      The book review notes: "Poladi was not a polished scholar and the book has certain weaknesses. He has assembled and attempted to use virtually everything he could find on his subject; hence, the inclusion of some unnecessary material. The comments of poorly informed travelers are treated with the same respect as the measured reports of thorough scholars. Nevertheless, after extensive summaries of such diverse works he usually comes to defensible conclusions of his own, and, despite his evident apologetic purpose, he presents a reasonable and plausible image of the Hazara experience. Indeed, weaknesses aside, this book is a rich mine of information on the Hazaras, for Poladi's inclusion of everything that is known about them makes it an incomparable source on the subject. The book is a kind of final utterance of Hassan Poladi, "a project of the heart," as someone close to him put it, for he passed away in the same year his book was published."

    2. Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991). "Poladi, Hassan, The Hazäras. Stockton, California: Mughal Publishing Company, 1989. ISBN 0-929824-00-8, LCCN 88-092511. 431 pp., with 13 illustrations (4 maps, 2 tables, 2 charts, 5 photographs), 5 appendices. Hard cover. US $19.95. Distributed by Avenue Books (840 W. Benjamin Holt Dr., Stockton, CA 95207, U.S.A.)". Central Asiatic Journal. 35 (1–2): 153–156. JSTOR 41927783. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "This book is remarkable in a number of regards. Most importantly, being a Hazara from Pakistan, enjoying access to Hazara American informants, and having received his tertiary education in his adopted country America, Poladi is in the unique position to relate the subject matter both as an insider and as a Western-trained scholar. He deserves much credit for his sincere and mostly successful endeavor to depict the Hazara’s world in an unbiased fashion, despite his admitted difficulties in detaching himself emotionally at all times, particularly while dealing with his people’s suffering through slavery and war. The exclusive use of the author's own technical and financial resources — aside from other persons' occasional help (e.g. typing, editing, translating, and library access) — makes The Hazäras the rather impressive result of a virtually single-handed effort."

      The review further notes: "The Härzaras has more than its fair share of grammatical and orthographic errors, inconsistencies and inadequacies. Inclusion of page headers would have facilitated quick reference. Captions in the body of the text ought to have been consistent with those in the List of Illustrations. The sporadic appearance of unexplained abbreviations in the bibliography ought to have been avoided. The subject index ought to have been extended to include all section headings. However, none of this lessens the value of Poladi's work to any significant degree. Being an important addition to the hitherto all too meager store of publications about this interesting nation, The Hazäras definitely deserves the attention of those interested in any Central-Asia-related aspect of Afghan studies."

    3. JDM (Autumn 1989). "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi". The Middle East Journal. 43 (4): 725. JSTOR 4328048.

      The short review notes: "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi. Stockton, CA: Mughal Publishing, 1989. xvi + 431 pages. Append. Bibl. Index. $19.95. A detailed study of the Hazara people of Afghanistan. Examines social customs, religion, history, language, and economy. Also includes a chronology and commentaries on rulers from 1370. (JDM)"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Härzaras to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 23:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Animorphs books. However, because of how this was listed initially (speaking technically, no fault to anyone involved in the nom), the script cannot do it. As a redirect is fundamentally an editorial action, it can be performed by any interested editor citing this AfD as the consensus to do so. There is no need to delete the text as no policy reason has emerged to do so. Star Mississippi 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles in the Animorphs series

AfDs for this article:
List of Animorphs 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)

In articles about a specific Animorphs book (i.e. The Mutation (novel)), the article's text only consist of author info, the plot and in-universe info. I have tried to find independent mentions about the books in reliable sources, not the series, to no avail. This means that most articles does not meet WP:BKCRIT for not having individual sources, and because notability is not conferred from the Animorphs article, they should be deleted and redirected according to WP:BKMERGE.

Tl;dr: books linked by List of Animorphs books should be deleted and redirected towards the list itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific:

Other related AfDs:
- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't want to delete these article presumptively. People are free to find independent sources that challenge my proposed AfDs. There is also a great encyclopedic value in the plot and there should also be a way to add a short plot description in List of Animorphs books similar to articles about TV series (List_of_The_Expanse_episodes). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect all to the main list. I've nominated several books from the series for deletion before, and there were no reviews of any to show notability. WP is not for plots of obscure books, there are multiple fan wikis that do exactly that.
Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm almost ready to procedurally close this nomination. This is not how you present a bundled nomination. You have only tagged one article and this AFD can not be extended to articles that have just been mentioned in the comments. Each article you are concerned about has to be tagged for a week, the content creator informed of the AFD and all articles listed in your nomination statement. It's interesting that you included other related AFDs but how this one closes doesn't affect them. And you can't include a template in an AFD nomination, it has to be nominated separately at WP:TFD. Please read over the instructions at WP:AFD for how to format a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I think I've done it properly now, I guess? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, CactiStaccingCrane, this discussion has gone on for a week, you can't add articles to the nomination at this point. I think you should close this and start it over. Liz Read! Talk! 09:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just pedantic though? I think that everybody here know what articles I'm talking about. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect All per the above. All fail WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. These articles are in-universe fanfluff created around 2006, when Wikipedia was a very different place and standards for inclusion were often non-existent. Fans created what they wanted and then left, which is why so many of these articles have maintenance tags over a decade old. Back to Before even has a maintenance tag asking for citations that is nearly 20 years old. I can stomach a simple redirection to List of Animorphs books, but believe that is a mistake. This generally unsourced and abandoned material belongs on a fan wiki, not kept in the vain hope that the fans will come back to use them to spruce up the main list. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiuyin Zhenjing

Jiuyin Zhenjing (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 couldn't find sources that this is notable. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Condor Trilogy, but I think it would unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources and explanations added by 1.47.133.86 . 1.47.133.86, I hope you will add these sources and some text to the article. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Nine Yin Manual (九陰真經) is a crucial martial arts skill in wuxia fiction, prominently featured in all of Jin Rong's works. Well Should we delete Pokemon just because it is a fictional? The Nine Yin Manual holds greater prominence than Iron Man's armor in South Asian regions. Numerous literary works explore and research the subject, including "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" and many scholarly articles analyzing the Nine Yin Manual can be found on Google Scholar [7]. Please conduct research and find sources in the Chinese language before proposing deletion. Wikipedia is not exclusively an English language source center, and the absence of English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Thanks 1.47.133.86 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that English sources are not required, but providing some specific Chinese sources to evaluate (not a giant list) would be appreciated. Doesn't "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" refer to prescription compatibility? Sorry, I'm out of my element with Chinese. Don't see what Iron Man's armor has to do with the WP notability of this article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this: [8], [9]. That's campaigning. A neutrally-worded statement would have been OK. Jfire (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jfire:, I've been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and have learned about canvassing. I want to clarify that I notified related projects without explicitly requesting "keep" votes or to "save the article." My message only encouraged expressing opinions on the AfD, which is not canvassing. Many editors adopt this approach. If you've observed similar notifications from others, why not address them too? Over the past five years, during quiet or inactive country projects, when a notable article is in AfD, I've sent notifications on the project talk page. This isn't a request for votes, just an invitation for opinions, whether they be "delete" or merge" votes. As you are one of the respected editors I mentioned before, I never intended to oppose you. Pls pardon me. 1.47.133.86 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Nine Yin Manual or Jiuyin Zhenjing (simplified Chinese: 九陰真經) to pass the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  • Sources
    2. Jiuyin Zhenjing is the subject of a mobile game source.
    4. 中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍 中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍 (The Prescription of the Nine Yin Manual in Chinese Medicine: A Discussion on the Combination of Herbs) is a scholarly article written by Zhou Minlan (周敏郎), a Taiwanese physician and scholar of traditional Chinese medicine. The article was published in the Taiwan Medical Journal in 2012. In the article, Zhou Minlan discusses the relationship between the Nine Yin Manual, a fictional martial arts manual from the Legend of the Condor Heroes novels, and the principles of Chinese medicine. He argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a metaphor for the principles of Chinese medicine, particularly the concept of a combination of herbs. He begins by discussing the history and content of the Nine Yin Manual. He notes that the manual is divided into two parts: the internal martial arts and the external martial arts. The article argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a valuable resource for understanding the principles of Chinese medicine.
    6. 李连杰亲临现场，《九阴真经》全球首届武侠电竞大赛收官 - The inaugural "Nine Yin Manual" Global Wuxia Esports Tournament is named to honor the Nine Yin Manual in Jing Yong’s novel. Tencent Games and Perfect World co-hosted the tournament. The opening ceremony saw the presence of renowned martial arts star Jet Li.
    8. The Study of Martial Arts Secret Books on Jin Yong Novel Edition Correction: "Jiuyin-zhen-jing" as The Main Example is a scholarly article by Chen Junhong, published in Chinese Literature World in 2012. The article discussed the importance of the Nine Yin Manual with other manuals such as Jade Maiden's Heart Sutra, Wu Mu's Legacy, Sunflower Manual, and Six Yang Palm. That stated, "In Jin Yong's early works, particularly Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Return of the Condor Heroes, the manuals are often epitomized by the "Nine Yin Manual". This comprehensive text encompasses various aspects of martial arts, including internal and external skills, weaponry, light body techniques, and hidden weapons. Protagonists like Guo Jing and Yang Guo owe their advancements in martial prowess to studying this manual."
    10. The article 道"的阐释与追寻——《射雕英雄传》的原型解读 (The Interpretation and Pursuit of "Dao"—The Prototype Interpretation of "The Legend of the Condor Heroes") is a critical essay by Chinese scholar Li Xiaoping published in the Journal of the Gansu Institute of Education. The essay explores the theme of "dao" (道, the Way) in Jin Yong's martial arts novel and the Nine Yin Manual.
    12. The book 武俠小說話古今 discusses the close relationship between the "九陰真經" (Jiuyin Zhenjing) and the "道德經" (Tao Te Ching).
    13. (Page 68)
    14. The Nine Yin True Scripture is closely related to the Dao De Jing. The Nine Yin True Scripture was written by Huang Shang of the Northern Song Dynasty after he had read all the Daoist books in the world and comprehended the true meaning of martial arts. The first line of the scripture, "The way of heaven is to subtract from the excess and supplement the deficiency; therefore, the weak and the insufficient can overcome the strong and the excessive," is the same as the meaning of the Dao De Jing by Laozi. It can be said that the Dao De Jing is the mother of the Nine Yin True Scripture.
    15. (Page 100)
    16. Yang Kang, who was obsessed with the Nine Yin True Scripture, became insane and a madman, but his martial arts became even more powerful. Even the combined efforts of Hong Qigong and Huang Yaoshi were not his match. Another person who is astonishing is Wuqing, the leader of the Four Constables. The book says that this person has an empty abdomen, and his legs are all missing. He has neither internal energy nor martial arts, but his lightness skills are superb and his hidden weapons are the best in the world. I wonder how he practiced these light skills and hidden weapons.
    17. (Page 146)
    18. The Nine Yin True Scripture, the Northern Divine Art, and the Empty-Void Fist are all closely related to the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi. In his novels, he often quoted Buddhist scriptures and verses, and he was not just a martial artist who knew how to fight.
    20. The book Discussing Martial Arts and Analyzing Swords by Hong Zhenkuai, 2007, discusses the significance of the "Jiuyin Zhenjing" in Jin Yong's novels, particularly in "The Legend of the Condor Heroes," "The Return of the Condor Heroes," and "Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils." "Jiuyin Zhenjing" is portrayed as a pivotal element, influencing major events in these novels.
    21. Page 216
    22. In his book "The True and False Classics: The Phenomenon of Martial Arts Manuals in Martial Arts Novels," Hong Zhenkuai argues that the most famous martial arts manual in Jin Yong's novels is the Nine Yin True Scripture. The major events of Jin Yong's best novels, including The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber, were all caused by the Nine Yin True Scripture. The Nine Yin True Scripture is a powerful and mysterious manual that has been passed down for generations.
    23. Page 222
      The Nine Yin True Scripture was created by a Daoist monk named Huang Shang in the Northern Song Dynasty. It was hidden in a secret location for many years, but it suddenly appeared in the world one day. The appearance of the Nine Yin True Scripture caused a great stir in the martial arts world. Many people wanted to possess the manual, including the leaders of the major martial arts sects.
    24. Page 227
      The first Huashan Sword Meeting was held to determine who would be the rightful owner of the Nine Yin True Scripture. The winner of the meeting would be the one who could defeat all the other participants. In the end, the meeting was won by Wang Chongyang, the founder of the Quanzhen sect.
    25. Hong Zhenkuai argues that the Nine Yin True Scripture should have been kept by Wang Chongyang. He believes that giving the manual to anyone else would have led to a change in the cultural and religious beliefs of the martial arts world. This is evident in the effects that the Nine Yin True Scripture had on those who practiced it. Guo Jing, who learned the manual from Wang Chongyang, became a powerful and righteous warrior. However, Yang Kang, who also learned the manual, became a ruthless and ambitious man.
1.47.133.86 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above sources provided by 1.47.133.86. That's convincing, thanks for taking the time to translate and summarize. Hope those sources make it into the article, which except for the first sentence, is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Jfire (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by 1.47.133.86. Significant coverage in journal articles, books based on it and news of the esports tournament which is named after it. 94rain Talk 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided, and tidy up a bit. Bduke (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by sources provided above. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect‎ to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography. I see support for this AtD, and no other consensus was likely to appear. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hangovers & Hot Flashes

    Hangovers & Hot Flashes (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)

    Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I have checked for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google search, but couldn't find additional RSes. 4/6 of the sources on the page mention the book. However, none establish notability: Chick Lit Central (#1) doesn't provide SIGCOV, and Daily Bruin (#4), The Other 50% (#5), and Kim Gruenfelder (#6) are primary. Gruenfelder's website only mentions one "review", which is from another author, not a news source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep As a stub article, I strongly agree that there needs to be more sourcing on this book. Gruenenfelder's website does feature simply a quote from another author, but this is common for published works and not a reflection of reviews. Five of Gruenenfelder's books easily establish notability, but I will also concede that this sixth one is a bit more difficult in terms of sourcers from Kirkus and the like: my chief goal is to represent a work of literature about an older demographic of women, which is often excluded from the books that receive coverage. Happy to continue work on improving it, and would be open to Moving to Draftspace in this spirit, though I believe that removing it entirely would be a mistake. PickleG13 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like the most promising options are a Draftify/Redirect or just a straight Redirect.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Literature proposed deletions

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1198690135"