Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

Far Tortuga (novel)

[edit]
Far Tortuga (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)

AI language model entirely generated the article. There is only one source, might be appropriate to move into Draftspace. Verified as 100% AI using gptzero. Marleeashton (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. charlotte 👸🎄 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars and Venus in the Bedroom

[edit]
Mars and Venus in the Bedroom (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 enough coverage. I've attempted to locate coverage for this book, but was only able to find sales of the book and other first-party sources. See withdrawal below — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 04:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to point out that this page has had an undisclosed payment tag for a while and was proposed for deletion ten years ago. I won't vote here but I'm just pointing that info out for others. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Di (they-them). I've removed the UPE tag, it's old and any promotional language has been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Astaire (talk) 04:47, 30 December 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.

Whitney Awards

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Whitney Awards (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)

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

[edit]
Ally Louks (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)

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
    • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
    • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
    • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful...

[edit]
Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... (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 biography about a famous person is not notable enough on its own for an article. It's notable enough for a couple sentences on the subject's article at most. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm kind of torn. I have three reviews on the page, so it does pass NBOOK. However biographies are a bit of an odd duck in that it kind of has to satisfy two things: first it has to show notability. Once that's done, assuming the subject has an article, the article then has to show that it's more than just a rehash of the biography page. There are a handful of reviews, but I'm not pulling up that much. I've got the impression that there's likely more but it's not as strong as an impression as I'd like. I'm somewhat leaning towards keeping this, but I'd rather look for more sourcing so I'm going to refrain from making that an official stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There looks to be a review here, but I can't verify all of it. This is making me lean towards the thought that there's probably more out there. I'd just like to have more critique of the book, as that is going to be what helps this stand out from the main Mariott article. If we can find interviews about the book, even better. I think notability is established, but what I want to prove is that it would be able to stand on its own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a copy of the book Everybody Dance: Chic and the Politics of Disco here on Internet Archive. Both Everybody Dance and Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... were published by Helter Skelter Publishing so the book may not be sufficiently independent to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 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. "Reviews - Book of the Month 14.08.04". Music Week. 2004-08-14. ProQuest 232200055.

      The review notes: "A rich portrait of the man described by some as the greatest white soul singer of all. From paying his way through the Italia Conte drama school, through his time with The Small Faces - the first group to be banned from Top Of The Pops and who were deported from Australia at gunpoint - to relentlessly touring the States with Humble Pie in the 70s, money problems, latter solo days on the pub circuit and his tragic end in a house fire at 44, All Too Beautiful seeks to restore Marriott's importance in rock 'n' roll with considerable success."

    2. O'Reilly, Chris (2004-07-10). "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful By Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier Helter Skelter Publishing, £19.99". Evening Express. Factiva EVEEXP0020040713e07a0001p.

      The review notes: "This is the definitive account of the life of Small Faces and Humble pie frontman Marriott - the original Modfather who penned and sang such hits as All Or Nothing, Itchycoo Park and Lazy Sunday afternoon. ... Beset by drug and alcohol problems, he was making plans for a comeback with Frampton in 1991 when he died in a house fire that destroyed his 16th Century Essex cottage. He was 44 years old.This is a well researched book marred only by poor pictures, all black and white.An extensive list of all Marriott's recordings, solo and for various artists, throws up some interesting gems. For instance, he wrote and sang an award-winning advert for a brand of coffee in the 70s, and played on various Rolling Stones tracks.All in all, a sad tale well told."

    3. Clark, Pete (2005-12-05). "Rocking good reads". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329879723. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful (Helter Skelter, Pounds 14.99) is ably constructed by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, but they are unable to dispel the sense that this baby-faced man with an evil tongue was a bit of a sod. Apparently, Marriott had an alter ego called Melvin the bald- headed wrestler, who leapt into being whenever Steve was off his face on coke and drink, and in a mood to be as nasty as possible."

    4. Crowley, Lord (2004-07-05). "Still room for ravers..." BBC. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

      The article notes: "This week sees the publication of the book All Too Beautiful written by Paolo Hewitt with John Hellier. It's the definitive story of one of London's all time great rock n rollers: Steve Marriott... An exhaustive account of the East End musical maverick, it spans his beginnings as a child prodigy, his memorable work with arch top Mods the Small Faces, and all the way through to his later work with Humble Pie, his subsequent solo career and his untimely death in 1991. ... Which is why it's nice to see this book and the success of various recent compilations that give the man his 'propers'. His proper respect. ... A right riveting read as they say."

    5. Wobble, Jah (2004-08-01). "All Too Beautiful by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier: Artful, mercurial - but he wore a lot of people out". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-07-06. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

      The review notes: "All Too Beautiful answers the question. Written by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, it is nothing if not a labour of love. Hellier ran a Small Faces fanzine for years, and Hewitt's love of all things mod is well documented. However, the book is not just for hardcore fans of Steve Marriott. It provides a down to earth account of the "swinging London" scene of the 1960s, by which time Steve and the Small Faces were ensconced in Pimlico, larging it at their Westmoreland Terrace abode. The shenanigans Marriott encountered in the music business at that time are also well documented."

    6. Unreliable source that cannot be used to establish notability:
      1. Connolly, Ray (2012-04-05). "Small Face who fell from grace". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Evening Standard.

        This review is from Ray Connolly, who has written for the Daily Mail, as well as The Sunday Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer. But it cannot be established to notability owing to the consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL that deprecated the source. The review notes: "Steve Marriott wasn't the great star that Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier believe him to have been, but he was an accomplished musician with a striking voice. Nor is this a great biography, mainly because the subject had such a one-dimensional life, and is such an unattractive personality. It is, however, one of the best books I've read about the backwaters of rock music."

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

    Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond villains

[edit]
List of James Bond villains (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 is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, which is also questionably sourced and possibly WP:OR. This article is almost completely unsourced and there is nothing to preserve that hasn't already been covered at similar articles, including List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and the mentions in List of James Bond films. Wikipedia implores us to not endlessly make new splits of the similar topics based on WP:SYNTH and arbitrary scope. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification comment. Suggest either delete one, or merge one into the other. We don't need two lists doing the same thing. This is not about whether or not Bond characters have been listed/covered. Both lists do that, to one degree or another. This is about list duplication, and which one is the most accurate and most within Wikipedia standards to do so. — Maile (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kavanagh, C., Cavanna, A. (2020). James Bond villains and psychopathy: A literary analysis. Journal of Psychopathology, 26(4), 273-283 [10.36148/2284-0249-351]. link
Grandy, C. (2014). The shape of villainy: Profiteering and money-men. In Heroes and happy endings: Class, gender, and nation in popular film and fiction in interwar Britain (pp. 83-132). Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526111210.00010 (note: not able to access full view of this)
DiLeo, M. (2002). The Spy who Thrilled Us: A Guide to the Best of the Cinematic James Bond. Hal Leonard Corporation. Though just snippet view, this book includes multiple pages on how Bond villains attempt to kill Bond and fail.
Hall, J. (2017, May 24). All 104 James Bond Villains, Ranked. Esquire. link
Huver, S. (2023, September 6). The top 25 James Bond villains, ranked. AV Club. link
Ultimately "Bond villain" is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, but a topic that's talked about and written about in the popular and scholarly press. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others citing WP:NLIST. In addition to the above, I found these:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (short story)

[edit]
Neither (short story) (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 meet WP:GNG; unsourced DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laws, Catherine (1998). "Morton Feldman's Neither: A Musical Translation of Beckett's Text". In Bryden, Mary (ed.). Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–86. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198184270.003.0005.
  • Tubridy, Derval (2020). "Beckett, Feldman, Salcedo... Neither". In Caselli, Daniela (ed.). Beckett and Nothing: Trying to Understand Beckett. Manchester University Press. pp. 43–159.
  • Laws, Catherine (2017). "Feldman – Beckett – Johns: Patterning, Memory and Subjectivity". In Heile, Björn (ed.). The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music. Taylor & Francis. pp. The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music.
Jfire (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The True Story of the Novel

[edit]
The True Story of the 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)

There is no need for this stub as one already exists for the author. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon volumes

[edit]
List of Pokémon volumes (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)

INDISCRIMINATE list of volumes from a variety of non-notable manga series, with their only similarity being that they're related to Pokémon. List of chapter information with no context as to why this split is notable nor necessary, and has no reason to exist separately from any other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

[edit]
Vampire Beach (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)

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 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. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."

    2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."

    3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."

    4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.

      The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."

      The article lists the books in the series:

      Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S

      Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.

      Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.

    5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

      The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."

    6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.

      The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."

    7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.

      The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."

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

    Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.
  • Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
  • Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
  • McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
  • Can't access Squires 2006.
  • Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
  • Can't access The Bookseller.
  • C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.
Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1266282453"