Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Literature

Stephen Dando-Collins

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

Fails ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, BLP. Appears to be a vanity page and without acceptable sourcing for the subject or his works. Possibly intended to be a PR page for his books. Already tagged for possible COI. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and History. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nom. In 2019, a former version of this page had unsupported puffery and promotional wording which was correctly removed by a couple of editors [1], [2] and one of whom tagged it for advertising [3]. This page has remained without reliable independent coverage.----Steve Quinn (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 19:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Award for Best Translated Novel

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

I suggest a merge to Locus Award because there's substantially nothing good of individual nature :) _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new award as a part of a long established family of awards. Unless the Locus editors agree with your assertion that 'there's nothing good' about it then it will keep coming back. I'm always in favour of adding knowledge, but if the consensus though is to delete, I would request making clear how many years it should be run before the award is allowed the privilege of it's own page.Nickpheas (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yes there is nothing substantially individual except for its type and the list of awardees. There are a dozen or so such lists, see {{Locus Award}}. --Altenmann >talk 20:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have a problem with a standalone "list". Do we have to forget our notability criterias for the sake of these awards? @Nickpheas, it's really unwarranted what Locus editors feel and say. I wouldn't disagree this being moved to a List entry because this is what it serves, no? A list for example, like, List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Bengali. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 19:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, second Altenmann's reason. I also find the "substantially nothing good of individual nature :)" justification to be questionable. I personally think it's awesome that this is a new category, as it introduces readers to a whole new world of good fiction. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Dealer

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

This article's only source is its Goodreads page (unreliable per WP:GOODREADS), and does not seem to be complying to WP:GNG as I could not find any meaningful resources online, including any reviews BlorborosOuroboros (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reviews in the New York Times Book Review, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Daily News, The Tribune (San Diego), UPI, the Arizona Republic, Publishers Weekly, passing both GNG and WP:NBOOK. It is usually impossible to find sources for this era of book on Google, you have to look in stuff like newspapers.com and ProQuest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also reviewed in Kirkus [4] PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PARAKANYAA, plenty of reviews for WP:NBOOK. Aside from outlets like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, most book reviews tend to be in offline sources accessed through databases like ProQuest, yeah. After your account is 6 months old you can get access to WP:TWL, but before then it can be difficult to find reviews for NBOOK unless its so obviously notable nobody would even think to delete it. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources to the article and a few more identified ones in {{refideas}} on the talk page. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd (literary scholar)

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

The article is primarily sourced in relation to political activism rather than scholarly or literary contributions. WP:GNG and WP:NPROF are not satisfied. Academic appointments alone do not automatically confer encyclopedic notability. Textcurator (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Education, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to be the author of multiple reviewed books, which suggests a pass of WP:AUTHOR. This is not to say that the article is well written or that its focus on political activism is justified, but sufficient evidence of notability exists. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear WP:AUTHOR pass. I have added reviews of all the listed books; see [5]. Jfire (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many reviews identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious AUTHOR pass. Zero^talk 01:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ascher: Fabric, Art, Fashion

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

No evidence that this is a notable publication 14GTR (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related AfD discussions. 14GTR (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find poster or links to buy the book, nothing we'd use to show notability. A redirect wouldn't help, this doesn't appear to have been a notable exhibit either, little to no coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, this does seem to have some reviews, the book review index lists at least 3 [6]. There are more in some magazines of the time but I can't tell if they're for the exhibition or the book or both (they seem to have been titled the same?). Might be worth having some kind of article that is combined. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zika Ascher#Legacy, which says more about the publication than this article does. Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Zika Ascher#Legacy as ATD: Lack significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to advance notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zika Ascher#Legacy as an WP:ATD – With no prejudice toward future expansion if a reader is able to access those book reviews to expand the article. While this might meet the bare letter of WP:NBOOK, redirection is a better editorial outcome here. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right Before the 30 Years Curve

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

LLM-generated article which fails NBOOK (as evidenced by the lack of things the LLM has to say about the book). Fermiboson (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and South Africa. Fermiboson (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator, I PROD'ed this earlier for refs failing verification and unreliable sources - fails WP:NBOOK Josey Wales^Parley 09:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Euphomedia (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence whatsoever that article has been written by LLM (it seems to me a very normal stub); there are external journalistic sources so it seems to meet WP:GNG somehow. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Which elements failed verification in the nomination diff? User:Euphomedia has been making edits to clean up some of the issues, and I corrected a typo. The newspapers seem reliable, as they have editors, but I can't verify the podcast. SenshiSun (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank podcast is an external or extension link of the Radio interview for a book review that the author had with a prominent radio station in South Africa Ikwekwezi Fm. It is part of the SABC News. Euphomedia (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I couldn't see that right away. All three sources look valid now.

Out of curiosity, did you notice any verification errors when you were doing your edits? SenshiSun (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we seriously believing that v1 is not LLM generated? NBOOK requires substantial reviews. The reviews are not substantial. Fermiboson (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That version is quite obviously LLM generated, as it is full of LLM formatting and weird text. LLM articles have been saved in the past with significant rewrites. When I checked the version available to me at the time, the only thing that failed verification was a typo. I will double-check the reviews for how substantial they are.

Personally, I would not be interested in taking advice about making the most of my 20s from someone who's only 23, but that doesn't factor into my editorial decision. SenshiSun (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles are detailed, as they discuss the book, its author, and its target market. Neither offer any criticism or questions. I can't check the third one right now because it's a podcast. I will try to listen to it later. I will see if this has any public press releases with similar content to the articles. SenshiSun (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issues present on v1 (and there were many) aren't what this discussion is for, the important thing here is the current revision. All LLM issues seem to have been suitably solved by the re-writes done by others and everything passes verification Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reviews which are on the article show that it (albeit narrowly) meets WP:NBOOK. The reviews go into enough depth. The article seems to have started out as LLM-generated, but the current revision is perfectly fine. It is a bare-bones stub with every detail cited to a source. It has been re-written enough that deletion as a WP:LLM violation would be counter-productive. The ways we deal with LLM-generated content is either removal or a re-write, and the re-write has done enough to address any issues LLMs may have caused. Issues present on v1 aren't relevant since this discussion is about whether to keep the current revision. Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shab-e-Barat

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

I propose merging to Mid-Sha'ban. Same thing with a different name, much like other Islamic festivals which are known by different names but which we don't duplicate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central Asia, Middle East, Iran, Iraq, and India. Gotitbro (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom. Mehedi Abedin 06:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support The articles describe the same date (15 Sha'ban) and the same theological core (a night of forgiveness), though I believe the difference lies in how it is interpreted by different cultures. A single, comprehensive article can present the unified origins while contrasting any sectarian or cultural differences.Tashmetu (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Umais 🗣 05:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyland

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

I propose restoring the previous redirect to Del McCoury Band#Discography. There is nothing noteworthy here. This article is almost entirely unsourced. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I disagree. The book is notable enough to be cited in multiple academic articles as verified by a quick search in Google Scholar. Examples articles include: State capture and development: a conceptual framework (2023), The UK’s kleptocracy problem: How servicing post-Soviet elites weakens the rule of law (2025), Kleptocracy and Nigerian politics: A reflection on the fourth republic (2024) and Exposing Islands of Refuge (2022). Kleptocracy, corruption, and tax evasion are significant issues especially in the modern day, and a book covering these issues that has received positive coverage by The New York Times and The Guardian, which are both considered reliable sources, is notable enough for its own article.

Secondly, the book's synopsis section lacks sources, but this is because I have made the article only a few hours ago and am in the process of generating citations matching up to the corresponding pages of the book. You will find that the reception section to have sources. Additionally, the first few results of the term "Moneyland" in Google or another other search engine bring up the book by Oliver Bullough, not the musical album. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:DRAFTIFY would be a better solution then but at this point this is not up to standards for an article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created less than 3 hours ago. Please allow enough time for the article to be improved, thanks. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General practice is to write in draft space, then move when it's ready. Currently, I support draftifying, but I can strike my vote (change it) when edits occur. Also adding this to my watch list. SenshiSun (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will just point out that nearly a day later and Acinonyxjubatusrex has not made any improvements to the page. So the argument please allow enough time for the article to be improved is not really valid. You are free to create this as a draft, but this is nowhere close to a ready article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Crime, Finance, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the reviews in the Guardian and NYT (linked in article), there are also reviews in The Economist , The Times (UK), andThe Press (UK). It meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional links! I'll add it to my list of references to incorporate into the article.

Hope you don't mind if I ask: what search engine did you use? Using duckduckgo and google for "moneyland" "oliver bullough" "review" only showed me the Guardian and NYT reviews. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Acinonyxjubatusrex, check out the Wikipedia Library. Schazjmd (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Completely slipped my mind that this was a resource. Thanks! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the point the article was nominated for deletion, it was sourced to reviews in The New York Times and The Guardian (i.e. it satisfies the first of the WP:NBOOK criteria). In addition, Schazjmd has identified numerous other excellent sources: the review in the (London) Times turns up on page one of the search results on DuckDuckGo and page two of Google. I'd respectfully suggest the nominator refamiliarise themselves with WP:DILIGENCE. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Next

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

Crufty rundown of a fictional character which is 90% unsourced, with the remainder sourced to the author's own website. No reason that this can't fit in a few sentences at Jasper Fforde. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasper Fforde for excessive primary sources and no obvious indication of meeting the notability guidelines for fictional characters. Article is almost entirely WP:FANCRUFT and not cited to reliable sources. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've noticed a lot of older articles for long-running book series (often children's and/or detective books, compare Jane Turpin) have a character article that acts as something resembling a series article. This article could potentially be reworked into something like Thursday Next (book series), but I'd hesitate to call that a keep !vote as there probably isn't more than a sentence or two of verifiable, non-fancrufty text in this entire article - basically just the lead, really. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham)

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq) § Merge the Ibn Hisham page here

– FaviFake (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge the Ibn Hisham page to Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq)

There is a page Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham). Ibn Hishams work is a derivation of Ibn Ishaqs and its how Ibn Ishaqs work is known to us, so these should not be a separate page, even though there were other derivations of Ibn Ishaqs sira Pogenplain (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Las Dos Almas del Ser

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

No coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:NBOOK. Only source is a self-publishing company. Created by the same user who created an article for the book's author at Sigfrido Cuen Rodelo, who is a Rotary Club figure, with the account name being Rotary88. Blatant self-promo. Οἶδα (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to merit its own article. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't even find any coverage at all, let along WP:SIGCOV. Judging by the deletion log for "Sigfrido Cuen" they may have had two autobiographies in mainspace at one point, which is fascinating. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Notable Book Award

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

I propose draftifying because this is a copy and paste disputed draftification, and WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. See the edit history of Draft:Michigan Notable Book Award for confirmation, where it was sent to draft by Bobby Cohn two minutes before it was copied and pasted here. Not verified to be in any manner notable. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG, as a collection of winners of this (probably) obscure award. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Michigan. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

comment history now all merged into the article. KylieTastic (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added citations other than the primary source, including news coverage the books winning specifically this award, and other mentions of the awards in news and in journals—would this make it no longer fail WP:V and WP:Notability? I have also added a list of notable recipients of the award. Also, would it resolve the issue or Wikipedia:Indiscriminate to delete the list of winners and just maintain the list of notable recipients of the award or those who have been specifically mentioned in the news? Bairdsparrow (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to mention that given the large number of winners of this award, large number of notable winners of this award, and ample mention of this award in news coverage in the American Midwest, I would not categorize this award as obscure. I think it is of particular significance to Michigan and the Midwest region and should, bare minimum, have a page detailing what the award is. Bairdsparrow (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to see the award as notable, however the big issue here is that we would need to be able to provide non-primary coverage of the award. Anything put out by the Library of Michigan won't be able to count. Newspaper coverage can, however we would need coverage that specifically focuses on the award. Even listings of the award winners would be good. An article about one of the winners isn't super helpful because the focus is more on the specific winner/book and not really on the award. The notability of the winners doesn't really transfer over to the award.

FWIW, the institution's notability would make the award certainly count towards notability for a book or author, however that's not really what's in question. However an award being enough to count towards notability doesn't mean that it's notable enough to have its own article outside of the parent institution. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't able to find anything really beyond what is already in the article. My recommendation is to do a selective merge into the parent article. A lot of state libraries have sections for their ongoing programs, awards/recognition, and initiatives. I think that it would be a great idea to create a section of this nature for the LoM and add a bit about this award into that section. I would leave out the lists of winners, as that would quickly overwhelm the article. You could probably add a handful of names as examples of people who have won, but it should be very limited. I'll start work on this. The article for this can certainly be draftified, however I'm uncertain that the necessary sourcing to establish independent notability really exists. Recognition from a state institution could certainly count towards notability for an author or book, however as I said above the usability of an award or honor to establish notability doesn't always mean that it's independently notable from the award institution. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and create redirect to Library_of_Michigan#Exhibitions_and_programs per what I've written above. I've added a section along these lines, so it can be mentioned there. I don't think anything else needs to be merged into that section. This actually reminds me of a similar-ish program for my own state library that has similar issues - I think I will likely end up doing the same thing there since it has effectively the same issues. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Wizardry

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

I propose merging to Young Wizards because it is not a notable book in itself outside of the series Yserbius (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related AfD discussions. Yserbius (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the series as a whole is notable, especially the first book which has multiple reviews and references from various sources, very few of the other books received any sort of major media coverage. The pages for each book consist of little else than an infobox and plot summary. Yserbius (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose group nom. I'm finding some decent sourcing for Deep Wizardry, and at least one interesting mention for A Wizard Abroad. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Group nominations of this size can get a bit messy, as popular or semi-popular series are prone to getting 1-2 reviews at a go. I do tend to prefer series pages to individual entries, particularly for children's series like this, as in most cases the coverage is fairly weak and the individual entries tend to be predominantly plot with perhaps a couple of reviews. In most cases there isn't a lot of info about the individual books' development, particularly as a lot of outlets tend to overlook individual entries in a series unless they're overwhelmingly popular. I'll see what I can find, though. The series page definitely needs some work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a couple of reviews for Deep Wizardry. This one mentions a School Library Journal review. So far the coverage is pretty much just reviews. This kind of goes into my concern with series like this: there may be some coverage for individual entries but said coverage is so light that the article is really just going to be plot and reviews. If there is a development or themes section, it's often based on coverage for the series as a whole, running the risk of the article for each individual entry more or less restating the same thing for each entry, with the exception of the plot section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ten book series. Even if we find enough reviews for three or four of them to be considered notable, what then? Do we keep the pages for books 1, 6, and 9 and the rest only are mentioned in the series page? Yserbius (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Technically all they need to pass NBOOK is a handful of reviews. Personally though, I don't think that those individual pages bring any benefit to Wikipedia. If you limit it to just what can be sourced, it's usually an eternal stub where the largest section is devoted to the plot or characters and the second largest may be a few lines of book reviews, basically like what we see in The Wizard's Dilemma. If a themes or development section exists, it typically contains content that applies to the entire series and is more or less copy/pasted into every individual article. It's kind of rare for a series to gain more attention later on down the line. Sometimes it can happen, but usually not since most media outlets are going to cover the latest and greatest. If they do cover it, it's usually for the series as a whole rather than the individual parts.

If the individual entries have enough sourcing to show where they can make the article unique and useful enough to justify an article, then I say go for it. But realistically most series will fall into what I've described above. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~. Merging a series into a single page makes sense, even if some of the books are individually notable (per WP:PAGEDECIDE). pburka (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... however the main page for the series is already very long and has a lot of unreferenced content. I think a serious cleanup of that page is called for before we start merging more content there. pburka (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to neutral. pburka (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages, which says, "Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy." Maintaining a standalone article allows for a cohesive overview of each book instead of having to search amongst an unwieldy series page for information about a book. Merging all 10 articles into the series page would result in undue weight and a very long article or result in the loss of content. MOS:PLOT says "plot summaries for feature films or full length novels should be between 400 and 700 words", so the plot summaries would have to be significantly shortened. There are at least two reviews cited in nearly all of the books' articles to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If certain books are notable on their own they should have stand alone articles. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support the merge if it would only merge the non notable titles? Yserbius (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would, with that ceveat. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are good arguments on both sides of this question. Its almost like we need an alternate solution. This discussion is a binary, merge or not. There is a Harry Potter Task Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Harry_Potter_task_force. Perhaps this is a issue better suited for that solution.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The Fantasy Task Force might be better suited for this. Young Wizards has no relationship to Harry Potter. Merging makes sense given article content, but if there are more sources, then that's not the right option. SenshiSun (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Poetry Association

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

No indication that this meets NORG. All 3 sources are "poets.org" and I have struggled to find any sources that would save it. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Organizations, and Ohio. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, it has nearly a century of history, there is quite a lot of coverage of it in older newspaper sources, e.g. [7], and on ProQuest. Nothing that sticks out to me as especially substantial coverage, but there might be something. It's hard to find if there is any substantial coverage when there are many mentions. It also appears to be covered in some encyclopedias of Ohio-related topics but I cannot see how extensive those mentions are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All I see is passing mentions. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions