Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 11:08, 18 June 2007 (Listing Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 No consensus (default to Keep). Waltontalk 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics. Seeks to capture any reference to Holmes or any character from Holmes whether Holmes appears or not or anything that has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase. Otto4711 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sherlock Holmes has in fact attained an extremely large place in popular culture in the 120 years since the first story was published. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles popular culture references should be spun off to a separate article if they make the main article too long. The Sherlock Holmes article is too long as is, at 77k. These entries are not loosely associated (they are fictional appearances of Holmes or his main villain Moriarity), not indiscriminate (all are closely related to Sherlock Holmes), and not trivial, and so the grounds proposed by the nominator and other advocates of deletion do not apply. In any event, WP:TRIVIA, labelled a guideline, is so disputed that it has had to be protected, not a ringing endorsement of its having consensus. The normal editing process can remove any entry which merely "has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase." It is not OR or unsourced to state that a CS Lewis book says "those days Mr Sherlock Holmes was still living in Baker Street ... " We do not need a second book stating what the first book says, or stating that a reference to Holmes is a reference to Holmes. Deletion is inappropriate for something which genuinely has a major place in pop culture, as does Sherlock Holmes. Edison 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles is an essay. It has absolutely no force as a policy or a guideline. It is an expression of opinion. Even if it did have some measure of force, it does not say what you're representing it to say. It does not say that "in popular culture" sections should be split off into a standalone article. It says that such sections in articles are discouraged and that the temptation to fork out such sections from the main article should be resisted, but that if it is succumbed to the resulting article must meet all relevant policies and guidelines. This list is indiscriminate and its items are loosely associated because it seeks to capture every reference that it can regardless of the source of it and it offers no commentary about the importance of the reference in the work from which it's drawn, to Holmes, or in the real world. What does knowing that C.S. Lewis wrote the words "Sherlock Holmes" in a book tell us about Holmes, the book, Lewis or the world? Nothing. What does knowing that in an episode of CSI the team investigated the murder of a Holmes portrayer in a fan club tell us about Holmes, CSI or the real world? Nothing. What does the mention of Holmes in a Coasters song tell us about Holmes, the Coasters or the real world? Nothing. There are certainly ways to do articles on the pop culture impact of things. The oft-bandied about Joan of Arc list is one. The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, although it needs a good bit of work, is another. But these endless lists of in-this-movie-this-one-guy-says-Blah-to-this-other-guy kind of "be the first to spot the reference" game some editors like to play under the delusion that it contributes something worthwhile to the project, aren't. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the result, do not merge it back. There was a good reason to offload this information away. And I have to agree with Edison - for example there one rather known 1930s movie in Czech language using the "Sherlock Holmes" character. Not that I am going to put it there but to me it strongly suggests that people will feel the need to insert such references. It is better to have them in a leaf than in the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better here than there is a poor reason for maintaining a pop culture article. As has been said time and again, if the people who maintain an article want this stuff gone, they should edit it out. Dumping a pile of garbage into a separate article is irresponsible and places a burden on other editors to do the job that the editors of the initial article should have dealt with. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ever notice how often at AFDs people base their argument for keeping in large part or even in toto on how much better the article could be? And then, in two months when the article is nominated again because it's still terrible and no one's done any work on it, it gets deleted? Otto4711 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the information in Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes really get us any closer to that?
Whatever of it isn't already in other articles, that is. In addition to the two other articles I mentioned, there's also quite a bit of similar stuff in Sherlock Holmes. In all, two articles include lists of Holmes computer games, three of them talk about House, and three discuss the same Neil Gaiman story. —Celithemis 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That question you pose is an interesting one: one the one hand, no; on the other hand, once this gets deleted, no one could write the article that I envisage; it would be speedied as "yet another one of those pop culture" articles that "we deleted a while back". Carlossuarez46 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Any number of articles which were deleted have been recreated. There is no prejudice to recreated deleted articles that are qualitatively different from the deleted. No one is likely to look to delete at an actual sourced article that discusses the phenomenon of SH in popular culture as opposed to a random smattering of bullet points on the grounds that it's recreated material. Otto4711 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture. There are plenty of reliables sources commenting on the phenomenon of Sherlock Holmes in popular culture that it deserves an article based on that commentary. Sure, the article in its current state is not the ideal Wikipedia article, but there is no reason it needs to be wiped and started all over; everything in the article is at least sourceable to primary sources. On the other hand, merging and redirecting to Sherlock Holmes in other media may be an acceptable compromise. DHowell 06:23, 23 June 2007 (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 Steve Cole (author). Sr13 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cows In Action

Cows In Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Brand new series of books of dubious notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of Cows In Action article and am dissapointed that my article has been nominated for deletion. I'm new and i don't know a lot about how to improve an article. The reason im not putting more into it is that the chances are somebody will improve my article. I am not advertising this book. Astrosaurs and Cows In Action are one of my best books and i was inspired to write an article about them. Don't delete my article please because if you do, I probably will create it again. Please let it stay on and if it is not improved in 1 Month Delete it. This article will probably be improved by other people. I just started it so people would look at it and put more into my article so its not rubbish. User Woggy June 18th 19:09

The issue is not the quality of the article, but the notability of the topic - which is an issue because Wikipedia articles are meant to be written based on reliable sources. If the article is deleted, please don't recreate it (it will simply be deleted again). Per my suggestion on your talk page, how about changing it to a redirect to the author's article, and including something about this new series there? If you'd like to create an article, there are loads and loads of articles requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or any of the red links at Newbery Honor would be fine topics. We like new users, and definitely do not want to discourage you from contributing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved my Cows In Action article now and i am still working on it. There are links to different articles in the article and a contents list. I am hoping that this is enough to stop my article from been deleted. I didn't know much about how to improve an article, but i have found out and its looking better than it was now. Im really hoping now that you won't delete it as i will and probably other people will improve it and make it better. It now includes information about the books but no images as i don't understand how you get images. The books that are not available yet i can't write much on. And i am sorry that i can't. More information on the upcoming books will be available when the book is published. I am also going to include something about Cows In Action on the authors article. User Woggy June 18th 20:23

Woggy, like Rick Block noted, you have to demonstrate notability. See this page for what we're looking for, and also see this page for what we consider to be reliable. Sorry, but unless it's notable, it's not going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I spoke up for a keep on Astrosaurs, the other famous series of books written by Steve Cole, but Astrosaurs is much longer running and much more successful than Cows in action. I would have a hard time supporting C.I.A. on notability grounds at present; if it goes on to be a Blockbuster success as well, then maybe it can be revisited at that time. Don't be discouraged though, Woggy. Losing an article to an AfD is a rite of passge that all Wikipedia editors go through. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Article does have notability. I put some in when i wasn't logged in yesterday. Thanks for the suggestion Rick, But somebody did it for me. There are a lot of redirects to different articles in my article. User Woggy 15:27 (UTC) June 19th 2007

I am going to keep it as a redirect to the author. I am not at all dissapointed that its been nominated for deletion. I have 2 questions. If somebody else creates it again and its improved and its notable, Will it be deleted? In the future when Cows In Action gets more books and is more popular will i then be allowed to restart the article again? I mean like in 2 years or 1 year. Because im new, Im not sure how to create a redirect. Could you tell me? User Woggy June 19th 2007 (UTC)

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. Sr13 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxes

Tuxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased book by vanity press. Questionable notability. WP:NOT a crystal ball, at the very least. Deproded by author with no explanation.

  • Keep - Tuxes is in fact available for pre-ordering - see Amazon. BeachSidePress is not a vanity press - Mr. Fivelson has never paid us. Some additional information about publishing that may shed some light on the subject: it is usual practice in the industry to begin selling a book many months before its publication date. And the book is available on Amazon and from our website now. I beg the question: what determines the existence of a book - sales, or the passing of the publication date which by common definition is a fiction. (See inside Kramer's 1001 Ways to Market Books) Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fivelson, AFD nomination for the author. eaolson 17:10, 17 June 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped At Stalingrad

Stopped At Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not qualify under WP:BK. Feshbach Fan 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in 398 libraries, according to WorldCat [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/a76c858f16a34440a19afeb4da09e526.html}, including many public and it seems like all major academic libraries and a great many college libraries as well. DGG 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an aside, I would admonish the nom for making a disruptive point, but unfortunately, I do think it needs to be noted that it's disingenuous of the WP community to assert that an article on Hayward's book is worthy of inclusion while Hayward himself is not (see here here) for more. Seems to me like that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I still think that this should be pointed out. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took it upon myself to clean up the Joel Hayward article, and it looks like it's actually going to survive (nope, it's been AfD'd). It still needs work though, and some of y'all might be interested in making some improvements (but not me, I've had my fill). Groupthink 20:18, 18 June 2007 (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 Warriors (book series). History will be left intact since there appears to be strong interest in merging, whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark River (Warriors)

Dark River (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article on a book that doesn't come out until January of 2008. Nothing in the article suggests that the book will be notable. The article is filled with speculative terms and the main content of the article is a action summary from an excerpt of the book from the previous book in the series. This should be deleted until after the book is released in half a year and notability can be proven and sources can be found. Metros 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warriors (book series), which has an empty header with only a link to this book name. Any crystal ballery can be removed from there. - Zeibura(talk) 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Outcast We don't have enough info on them, so it makes sense to make a small article on both of them. ~Crowstar~ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Zeibura. Can always be recreated in the future.Legalbeaver 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have modified it so that it has a infobox with a fair bit of info. I have also added a reference that should be reliable enough and that has a page on the book, Dark River. (Amazon.com). If anything, the idea of merging Outcast with it is also a good idea.~Bella 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now This will be a notable book, Metros, there is be no question about that. However, the reason this should be deleted is simply because you can't write an article with sources on a book that hasn't been published. The only thing we know about it is the two page preview at the back of The Sight. The information about when it will be published could easily be merged with the main article. When the book comes out would be the appropriate time to rewrite this article. KjtheDj 20:07, 22 June 2007 (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 withdrawn by nominator. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakespeare's works

List of Shakespeare's works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of information already outlined on the William Shakespeare page, as well as the {{shakespeare}} template, which is posted on several Shakespeare pages. All in all, unsourced, redundant, no real room for or reason for expansion. Speedy Delete Wrad 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn and Speedy Keep per recent changes and discussion. Wrad 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shakespeare's plays is not a detailed listing of the plays and their publication history. It is an article about the plays themselves. Trying to integrate a detailed list of important editions would be disastrous.
  • Shakespeare's sonnets is also an article about the sonnets themselves, not a detailed list of all 100+ sonnets. Including such a list would strain the page.
  • Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian is a proposed chronology for the authorship of the plays, if they were written by Oxford, not a listing of publication dates and information about those publications.
  • Chronology of Shakespeare plays tries to sort out the mess of dating Shakespeare's plays. It is not a page about publication information.

None of these other pages has the same purpose as this one. I have not seen a convincing argument from those who want to delete that relies on wikipedia's deletion policy. Simply because the page is incomplete at this time does not mean it merits a deletion. The page's concept is legitimate and much more information can be added to flesh it out and make it useful. If the editors here who are in favor of deletion want to delete all incomplete pages, they should begin by eliminating all "start" and "stub" articles and demanding that any new article that is posted be relatively complete. I was under the impression that wikipedia was supposed to improve slowly over time and ideally multiple editors would contribute to each page in order to make it better. Deleting legitimate but incomplete pages does not encourage such practices. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from creator - whoa... I only got the notification this was up for AfD just now. This is a work in progress (which I unfortunately have had little time to get to recently) and I have a much better version in the works in a text document which I am not quite finished. My plan was to have the list (once much further expanded) replace or expand upon the section William Shakespeare#Bibliography. I'll outline my plan below so people know what it is going to evolve to beyond a mere list of titles;
  1. Better formatting, in a table; with information including date work is assumed to have been published, folios/quartos/editions of note, notes about authorship if warranted, etc.
  2. Addition of images, of which there are many high-quality ones available on the Commons
  3. Better sorting, including divisions into tragedy/comedy/historical
  4. Further details that may be thought of in the future or that other persons can bring to the list
As Awadewit stated above, the other four articles on a similar subject are not comprehensive lists of just the works. Although the bibliography section has much the same information, it would be nice to expand more and have a little more relevant information available in one place. The articles on his plays and sonnets have too much background information and take longer to sort through. I am going to make this list far more than it is currently, and other people adding to it will help it expand and grow; as it stands it is a pathetic little stubby start containing only the bare-bones information. It was not intended to stay this way for long. I ask that it be kept so that it can be expanded and built upon; if after a month or two it is still not satisfactory then another deletion request can determine if it is needed. -- Editor at Large • talk 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually I agree with the delete votes that point out that the article as it now stands (or stood when I last looked at it) is redundant; I don't support the existence of articles that are redundant but might well become worthwhile, instead believing that they ought to be worthwhile from the start. Editor at Large would have been wise to build it up in his or her userspace, and only when it had reached a stage where it was clearly worthwhile spring it on WP's dazzled and grateful readers. Still, an improved bibliography would be worthwhile, and Editor has clearly and convincingly expressed an intention to improve it soon. So let Editor (and others) work on it. -- Hoary 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to William_Shakespeare#Bibliography. Wikisource has a rather complete list of his works at Author:William Shakespeare. I have noted on the Wikisource talk page that there are a few entries missing from that list. John Vandenberg 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just about a complete list in Shakespeare's case. It is about adding all of the interesting information that the primary editor has outlined. The Commons page has none of that - is it heading in that direction? Awadewit | talk 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much more appropriate that the intentions of Editor at Large (talk · contribs) are carried out on Wikisource, which is a project devoted to presenting the works of authors. In general I dont mind lists on Wikipedia, but in this case there is a more useful location for the list. John Vandenberg 10:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the List of Oz books, which is a featured list. Yes, having this information on wikisource is good; but there author pages are more about listing the person's works with links to their documents within wikisource, and some background information on the author. Here on wikipedia this list of his works will be more about having information and a comprehensive overview of the most important points about them, other than just dates and links. You are more than welcome to copy the list there once it expands, but when people are looking for a list of his works and information on them they will think "I'll look it up on wikipedia, where they have information on things", not "I'll go to wikisource where they host books". I am a contributor to Wikisource as well, and I know that it is more than that; but random people won't. Wikipedia = primarily information, Wikisource = primarily resources and documents. While you could provide a soft redirect to the wikisource page, if people are looking for information like will eventually be located on this list they will want to be on the encyclopedia, where they can also look at the information on the individual plays and sonnets and poems and the man himself. -- Editor at Large • talk 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to there being a list here if it is more useful than the Wikisource author page. At the time I commented earlier, this list wasnt developed beyond that stage. But, the list is now looking useful so ... Keep. John Vandenberg 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from submitter Sorry I didn't notify the creator, but this is my first RfD (I actually looked over the editor's recent contributions, saw no Shakespeare-related edits, and figured he had forgotten about the article). Anyway, I like the idea of developing it a lot (in both senses), perhaps in a table format, with proposed creation dates, collaborative authors, revisers, early publications, classifications, etc. I also think it should be renamed to List of works attributed to Shakespeare, in order to acknowledge that his authorship of several of these works is in question. Wrad 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the current version (as of 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)) seems to mostly duplicate content in William Shakespeare, I believe that this list could be further developed into something in-between a mere list and a full-fledged article on each play, something akin to the Featured list List of major opera composers. Perhaps this list could have brief, spoiler-free descriptions of each play, such as "Romeo and Juliet: Romeo and Juliet fall in love despite coming from rival families." OK, so that description needs work, but you get the idea: a brief, even pithy description of the initial plot, perhaps combined with best known dates of each play's premiere, etc. Something similar could be done for each poem listed. Admittedly, that would make for a very long article if each sonnet were described, but Wikipedia isn't perfect. A list like this, as far as I can tell, would not duplicate precisely anything on any Shakespeare page currently existing on Wikipedia. Please allow the page time to grow. --Kyoko 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that we have heard from the creator (no, not THAT one) about his plans for the page, and the eloquence with which he made his argument, I am changing from delete to keep. I agree with Wrad (above) that we should allow for time for the page to grow in the way described. One quick note - presently The Two Nobe Kinsman is listed under apocrapha instead of his accepted works, as it is generally agreed that he was a co-writer.Smatprt 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Kyoko. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs improvement, per above. Modernist 04:08, 22 June 2007 (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. — Caknuck 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A&P (story)

A&P (story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a plot summery. Subject does not seem notable meshach 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs improvement and sourcing, more real-world analysis & context. But this is a notable story by a very notable author, and it shouldn't be hard to find sources to improve this. DES (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BK point 5 The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. John Updike fits that criteria IMHOBalloonman 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's still appropriate to request third party sources and analysis, the page is still nothing but a plot summary. Updike is a notable author, but this isn't a good article. Yet. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Won't dispute that... but that doesn't justify deletion.Balloonman 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Updike - Written by a notable author, but the short story is not notable itself. No reason for a seperate article to exist. Note that this is not even a full book, it's a short story, so WP:BK point 5 does not strictly apply. -- Kesh 05:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure how notable this story is, but the author is certainly notable. With better sourcing and discussion of the siginificance of the story (assuming it has any) this article would be a definite keeper. Note that in the rather esoteric category "1961 short stories" (in which this article is included) there are several other short stories included, some by less notable authors. Also, if we can have an article on every episode of a stupid TV show, we can certainly have an article on every short story Updike every wrote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — Sure it's notable, but it has no sources. An article can't be kept if it's original research. If sources are found, I'd say keep, but as it stands, the article should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, Yep, it looks fine now. Thanks for adding the sources! *Cremepuff222* 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the sources have been added--this is the sort of material needed to supplement a great many articles in WP that are now mainly or entirely plot descriptions. Weak deleteunless some sources discussing the story are added. They surely exist, since this is a staple in literature classes.DGG 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC) DGG 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's silly for this story to get deleted just because it is not sourced, so I added a couple of citations which I found on JSTOR to the intro describing the reactions of two English professors to the story (actually I only found the first article, the cite from the book was contained in the article which is sort of cheating but I think allowable, if not all of the new material can be sourced to the first footnote and still gives two different scholarly perspectives). I know nothing about this story, so hopefully someone who does can add more. This is all I could find on JSTOR quickly, though it's obvious from a quick google search that this story is used in classes and discussed all of the time and I assume there is commentary on it in any number of anthologies of American fiction. There are several published articles which are pedagogical in nature (i.e. how to teach the story), though I don't think that would really add much in terms of sourcing.
Anyhow, the articles has sources now, so hopefully Cremepuff and DGG will consider changing their votes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage adding the others--they are likely to be the sort of things useful to students as well as to teachers. DGG 03:24, 18 June 2007 (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.--Wafulz 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Game Called Chaos

A Game Called Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to pass notability guidlines Lenoxus " * " 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While there is a Hardy Boys book by that name, I can't seem to find anything about the book, other than the one or two sentence synopsis already in the article--Ispy1981 17:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information available is commercial in nature. I don't think Amazon.com qualifies as an encyclopedic source. Children's books don't become notable by virtue of having been published -- particularly not books numbered 160 in a series. Delete --Nonstopdrivel 17:33, 15 June 2007 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

AfDs for this article:
Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. there seems to be nothing in terms of reliable secondary sources covering the book from a quick google scan (virtually all are retail websites), and as such appears to fail WP:BK. article survived a previous AfD, but no rationale was offered as to why the book was notable. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 14 June 2007 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. No citations. A quick google shows an extreme lack of coverage in secondary sources (the only hits seem to be retailers). It's been a stub since its creation sixteen months ago, with zero content edits made on it in all that time, outside the creation of the article itself. Furthermore, there is no encyclopedic content here, just a TOC. Ford MF 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Touch magazine lists a number of books. It is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. In fact, the review actually emphasises Gabriel's notability and not the book's.
  • The Quarterly Journal, again, is not discussing the book and makes only two trivial mentions of it in the footnotes citing 8 pages of the book.
  • Future Islam (is this a reliable source?) does indeed cover this book but the reviewer appears to be non-notable too since there are 0 ghits.
  • Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The sources that Mike18xx has now added makes it obvious that the book is notable enough to have an article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recently added sources.--SefringleTalk 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are two adequare references, (Reference 1 is amazon: not a RS for anything beyond the fact that it's been published. Ref 2 is "In Touch Magazine" is [1] "A Magazine of People and Possibilities A FREE Self-Help, Inspirational, Holistic Publication " I cannot tell if it's a RS in whatever its field may be, but it is not a RS for Islamic terrorism. JB, of the MB school of theology, who wrote there, doesn't exactly seem qualified either). But 3/ Connections, however, is very substantial: [2] , from ETH Zurich, as solidly academic & respectable as you can get. The cite is a section of an article "U.S./NATO-Russia and Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism: Toward Building a Comprehensive Strategy." 1-25 by Sharyl N. Cross" and does make reference to the book and praises it . "For an excellent summary of the contributions of the influence of these writings in the development of Islamist radicalism see Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006), 20–26. Future Islam seems a high quality liberal Islamist online publication, & has an extensive review. . Seems OK after all, despite most of the article being a quote from that well known RS, the book jacket. Good NPOV overall. DGG 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources now. Thanks to the person who added them. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:12, 18 June 2007 (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. Sr13 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions Magazine

Traditions Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Magazine existed for only 1 year and the article does not assert its notability. Zero references. The talk page shows that the person who started it thinks it should be deleted. Pigman 00:50, 12 June 2007 (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 and redirect Varjak Paw (film) to Varjak Paw. Cúchullain t/c 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varjak Paw

Varjak_Paw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I've set this article for deletion until someone can fix this article. In my opinion, though, this article is so messed up that we should begin again. I've also noticed that some parts of this article cover the second book. We could also split this article up and clean it up a bit. Astroview120mm 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article and also
Varjak Paw (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

because the film has not yet been released and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. The whole fictional universe is not notable. YechielMan 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went ahead and cleaned up the article. I've never read the books, so there may be some errors (if the article remains, anyway). They sound cute, though. Propaniac 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Astroview120mm 01:56, 15 June 2007 (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 Eluchil404 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus books (publisher)

Titus_books_(publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I'd just like to register a heads up that this article seems to have been marked for deletion by someone engaged in a personal feud.

I don't know what the history of it is, or why I have been targetted, but Literato's only other contribution to Wikipedia was to place a puzzling message on my talk page threatening me with stalking and physical violence. NZ forever 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Weak Keep - still needs more editing to bring it into a WikiP style article. But I now believe there is enough to warrant inclusion. -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Delete - No assertation of notability. -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow editors time to find and insert references. I think tagging the article with {{references}} might have been more charitable than listing it as AfD. Several Ghits, mostly from author blogs but at least one from publicly-funded arts NGO in new Zealand. Given that the publisher obviously exists, and had produced several books in the last few years, I'd be surprised if it couldn't meet notability criteria for organisations. But the editors who want to keep it do need to find and cite those references. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now revised. A much better article now that 1finalmercymission has fixed it. Sufficient notability. DGG 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Weak Delete One journal and nine books do not make a notable publisher. (Nor does a publishing house usually become notable in two years--two decades is more like it.) Probably there is more to be said, so say it. How "many" of its authors are firmly established? DGG 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, allow editors time to fix this. The website lists more publications than the page does currently. My feeling is that it probably is notable by New Zealand standards - the move for deletion was malicious and didn't cite notability. Seems a shame to delete it, but someone needs to put a bit more effort into the page.NZ forever 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Stark

Sam Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samthephilosopher (talk • contribs).

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 Deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). soum talk 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldbarer

Fieldbarer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cites nothing, and yields no google results, sequel article was deleted. Non-notable IMO Alcemáe T • C 23:15, 12 June 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism of depth

Journalism of depth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Two prods have been added and removed. The reasons were that the article is an essay inappropriate for Wikipedia and that it is unverifiable. The article also lacks any sources. Mallanox 23:50, 12 June 2007 (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. DES (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spriggan (list of ISBNs)

Spriggan (list of ISBNs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A directory list of ISBNs, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Masaruemoto 01:50, 13 June 2007 (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. To be honest, this could have been speedy deleted under unremarkable firms.--Wafulz 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJS Publishing Group

MJS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very tiny press; please see the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Donovan Mullaney. Relevant guideline is WP:CORP. Note that all three poets mentioned don't have articles; Andrew Barlow is somebody else. Chick Bowen 06:06, 13 June 2007 (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, suggesting a merge with Shakespeare's influence on the English language or similar. --Tone 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words invented by Shakespeare

List of English words invented by Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

AfD was opened by User:Avowl, see description below. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. The origin's of the myth of the words invented by Shakespeare comes from the Oxford English Dictionary. People assume that since the first cited source in the OED is from Shakespeare that Shakespeare invented that word. This is false. The editors of the OED used the concordance to Shakespeare (a list of all the words in his works) to find citations for the Elizabethan period. They also had an editorial bias towards literary sources, especially important literary figures. These three books give this information in detail, with the Schäfer book dealing specifically with antedating words with the first citation from Shakespeare:

Lexicography and the OED edited by Lynda Mugglestone

Documentation in the OED by Jürgen Schäfer

Empire of Words by John Willinsky

The book Coined by Shakespeare for example using first citation as evidence that Shakespeare invented the word, which as stated above means little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avowl (talk • contribs)

  • Keep encyclopedic and semi-sourced. Needs some more, but that wouldn't be difficult. If some of the words can be antedated to Shakespeare, then fix it. EliminatorJR Talk 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article should be converted to use inline sources for some key assertions. Wasn't this a split out of one of the other Shakespeare articles on its way to FA? The major problem I have with it is that the body seems to argue against the article title, so it should be List of words arguably coined by Shakespeare, or something more NPOV. As it is, it purports to be a list, it tells you the list is likely false or dubious, then gives you the list. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but a less pov title is needed to go with the disclaimer in the article which clearly express doubt. English words with coinage attributed to Shakespeare perhaps. It is preposterous that he coined these words, then put on plays where the actors recited lines full of words unknown to the audience. Many of the "coined" words were simply French or Latin words which were familiar to most listeners, or combinations of words. Did Shakespeare say, "From now on the Latin word pious will be also be the English word pious? The article also says OED was prone to overattributing to him because his works were more familiar to modern readers and easy to search. At least there is a reference or references for the claims, so it is not OR. Any editor is free to find reliable sources with earlier printed uses of the word as an English word. But wait: how do we know the earlier writer wasn't using frugal as a French word? Distinction without a difference. Edison 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous reviewers. Probably rename it, definitely add citations. I think that the comments made by the deletion nominator are better placed simply on the talk page rather than in a call for deletion, though the his points are valid and this action, even if it doesn't get the article deleted, will definitely motivate editors to make it better. Wrad 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to English words invented by Shakespeare since this is more than a list. -Docg 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the (if not the) English language's most important author's effects on the language is worthy of an article. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why this article shouldn't be deleted as it contains almost no verifiable information relating to Shakespeare. Almost all the words on the list were almost certainly not invented by Shakespeare. The burden of evidence is on showing they were rather than antedating them. Why should Wikipedia perpetuate this 'urban legend?' Avowl
  • Comment: I can't claim to have an informed opinion on the viability of the article (but perhaps it is better for the Wiki dictionary?), but if it is kept, it could be moved to English words first attested in the works of Shakespeare? That avoids the issue of whether WS actually coined the words. (The books cited in the article lack the usual bibliographical information: edition used, publisher, place, year etc. That needs to be fixed.) Pharamond 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs more sourcing, but it is useful, verifiable, and highly encyclopedic. This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia trump Britannica. VanTucky 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it needs sourcing, source it, but please keep the list—it's a verifiable record of the man's accomplishments, and is surely notable. —Ryan McDaniel 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with this article is not that it lacks sources but that sources cannot be found because the information, i.e. that Shakespeare invented the words on the list, is false. Avowl 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article but change its title to something along the lines of 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare". The article embodies a widespread belief that Sh did in fact coin a number of words- which affirmation by its nature is neither provable nor unprovable except on a case-by-case basis. As such, the affirmation is an established part of Shakespeare lore, in the same way as the unprovable 'fact' that he died on his birthday. The article should be commented as such, but left. It has served my students well as an introduction to the wider debate on verificability of historical documents.'

Previous comment by user RichardBrownon June 14 2007 at 8:49 CET

    • Comment Wouldn't an article with a list of words and the title 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare' just be misleading? Perhaps an article without any words, purportedly coined or otherwise, but a comment on the origins of this piece of 'common knowledge' and why it is false. Avowl 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, I agree, to say 'coinage' or anything like it is misleading, as it means the same basic thing as 'invented by', although qualifying it with 'that have been attributed to' makes it better. We do need something different. I wouldn't be opposed to the changes you suggest here, rather than a either deletion or keeping the article the way it is. Article titles so far have been a bit bulky. Perhaps simply Lexicography and Shakespeare? This is simple and doesn't imply anything inappropriate, although people may expect an article that will illuminate the meaning of the words Shakespeare uses. Let me know what you all think.
Also, is there a term used in the books you mention that may lead to an appropriate title? Or perhaps a term for the study of the origin of words? That would be useful. [[Wrad 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! Etymology is the study of word origins. Perhaps Etymology and Shakespeare? This seems to fit very well. The article could cover the history of Etymological subjects related to Shakespeare, and the controversies. If merited through sources, we could eliminate the word list, and stick to the prose. This seems very satisfactory to me. Wrad 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains words like fishify (fish with and "ify" after it, to turn into a fish) and noiseless (noise with "less" after it) that would not take a thousand years and a literary genius to come up with, as they are simply common words with a common suffix attached to them. Watch me be a little Shakespearean here and add my own words to the English language: "sockify", to turn into a sock, and "flossless", a state of being where one has no floss. These words or words like them were probably thought of and used in slang or conversation before Shakespeare was born.67.170.187.52 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)subtle_one[reply]

Comment That's all very clever, but it neglects other, more notable words mentioned in the article, such as scuffle, bump, and grovel. The answer to your objection would be to remove less-important words, not to delete the article. Wrad 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originated this article and created the title (then using another user name). The original article was just a short paragraph, with the long list of words (which have remained since the beginning). The article has since been expanded by other contributors who added some good background on the evolution of the English language during Shakespeare's time.

Regarding the list of words, there were many more words I could have added, but I chose not to as the list was already getting pretty long. The author of my original source for these words (Michael Macrone, who cited the OED as his source) did not include the possibility that Shakespeare may have not invented all these words, but he did state Shakespeare was the first person to use a particular word. So essentially, Shakespeare may have first used the word, but that didn't mean he neccessarily invented the word—two different things. Well, as often happens here, contributors came along who have different and more wide ranging sources that showed the OED's research on Shakespeare's word inventions may have been flawed. Perhaps the article's title should have been different from the start, so I take responsibility for this. After new information was added, the article's title should have been changed.

Since it would be nearly impossible to know which words Shakespeare actually created (unless someone has definitive sources on this) the title of the article should reflect this, even though article cites references that state Shakespeare's specific lexicographical contributions are uncertain. No one doubts Shakespeare's contribution to the English language, but the specific title of this article is misleading. Presuming this article is kept, I would support a change to any title, whatever is agreed upon. BearGuard 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would strongly urge any rewrite of this article not to include the list because it only reflects the way in which the OED was written not Shakespeare's relation to English. The fact that the earliest citation in the OED is from Shakespeare definitely does not mean he was the first person to use the word in written or oral communication. When the editors were compiling the OED they relied heavily on the concordance to Shakespeare for words from the Elizabethan period. Since the list of words was compiled using this inaccurate reasoning, there is no reason to keep it and only get rid of words that can be individually antedated by a Wikipedia editor with a large library of publications from the 16th century. Avowl 23:13, 16 June 2007 (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. DES (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahasamparka

Mahasamparka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. No hints to secondary coverage, awards, or similar are given, hence it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). The external link in the article points to a Wikipedia mirror. PROD was contested last October, without rationale. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:07, 11 June 2007 (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. DES (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Townsend Letter

The Townsend Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced, orphan article. THF 15:36, 10 June 2007 (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. DES (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Mahkinoc

The Fall of Mahkinoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on a self-published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not self published, since tate publishing is more than just Frank Wacholtz, but I supose it really isn't peticularly notable either, since it's not to popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAF (talk • contribs)
Comment The publisher in question, Tate Publishing, appears on a list of vanity presses within the Vanity press article. That said, per WP:BK "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". Victoriagirl 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am inclined to agree with the point about notability, if web hits are any indicator. I got primary sources, retail listings and trivial mentions. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tate publishing appears to be a publish on demand press. They make claims that the reject 95% of books, they invest lots of money in advertizing etc., but what is clear is that they charge authors $4,000 to publish. [3]. Presses that charge to publish are not reputable in my book. Putting that aside, I cannot find any reliable sources covering this book; it's ranked at 2,631,478 at amazon; and I failed to find it at the Library of Congress or on Worldcat, despite locating its isbn (1598863932).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:59, 16 June 2007 (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 - no reliable sources; fails WP:BIO, subject is simply a retired executive. - KrakatoaKatie 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Swanson

Charles E. Swanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We do not, as a rule, have articles on people because they were merely the executive of another notable article. This person does not appear to be notable, and indeed, given the complete lack of references, how could we possibly counter that initial impression? DevAlt 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was somewhat my point. DevAlt 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Publisher of a very major publication is notable, even if it weren't one of our rivals. Agreed, not every publisher,but this one counts. That previous and later one's arent linked just means that we still have a way to go. DGG 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Weak Keep or Delete without prejudice against recreation) -- Long time president of a major publication. EB does not have an article on him, but that does not mean that we cannot develop one (they do have one on other EB presidents). The Atlantic, 1974 June has an article "Britannica 3, History Of" which at least references him, but it's not available by ProQuest, so I don't have access. However, as it is, it doesn't say anything about his contributions to EB, so it's not a useful encyclopedia article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a mention in the EB article should be enough. FredCups 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Am I missing something? What's the debate? Are we going to list every former business executive here? That he was president of Encyclopedia Britannica is cool but so what? --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (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 Oscar Wilde. Whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision, as always, history will be left intact in case anyone wants to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Holland

Cyril Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Oscar was Wilde, but his son was just one of many British soldiers killed in WWI. Clarityfiend 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person is not notable. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Oscar Wilde per Otto4711. The essential info is already there and there's no independant notability shown for Cyril. It's too bad we can redirect to the "Marriage and Family" section of the Wilde article; hopefully the developers will give us that capability some day.--Kubigula (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oscar Wilde. Being the child of a famous man or woman does not automatically make you notable enough for Wikipedia. The Filmaker 23:13, 17 June 2007 (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: lack of reliable sources. Moreschi Talk 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diggory Press

Diggory Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Marketing promotional piece. Doesn't seem to have much if any independent coverage and hence doesn't seem notable. Also, the creator of the page (Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs)) appears to be an employee of the organization. Flex (talk/contribs) 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has it's problems with flowery language but I think the topic of the article is "worthy" of an article. The business is associated with a number of authors who are notable in their own rights. (according to the article that is). For now I recommend 'stubbing and not deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the authors you are referring to the long dead ones (John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, etc.)? Their works are in the public domain, many are also available online (e.g., at Project Gutenberg, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, etc.), and many are in print by any number of other (dare I say, more notable?) publishers (e.g., Yale University Press, Banner of Truth Trust, Ligonier Ministries, etc.). Hence, Diggory Press is not unique or notable because of its association with these authors. I would say we need some independent coverage of this org, or at least some reliable stats on its distribution volumes or something. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can see Diggory's worldwide distribution volumes via places like amazon.com. It is notable in that many of the books published are NOT available anywhere including online (although some of course are). Also books published by Banner of Truth and other Christian publishers are not always as available as Diggory Press. Diggory is unique too in that the prices for Jonathan Edwards books etc are considerably lower than the university presses et al (eg 9.99 instead of 99.99 fo theological tomes). It also publishes many other lesser-known authors (over 600 of them which are not available anywhere else), including a book by the member of UK Parliament, Bill Wiggin, it has just included the most famous authors on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalindfranklin (talk • contribs)
        • I mean statistics on how many books you actually sell. As for pricing, having a lower price than, say, Yale's critical editions of Edwards does not seem to me to be a factor for notability, and moreover there are a number of other publishers of many of the same volumes at lower cost than Yale (e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), not to mention the two two-volume Works that are available relatively inexpensively ([9] and [10]) or his Works on CD ([11]). So still, you don't seem to have a unique relation to any of the older Christian authors that would establish notability. Moreover, publishing any number of lesser-known authors does not seem to be an argument in favor of notability. Yours seems to me more like a micropublisher — not that that's a bad thing, just that it's not necessarily encyclopedic. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that we produce effectively mass-market editions of (usually) very expensive important and often very hard to find theological books does establish a degree of notability for us as a publishers. That along with the other factors that make us up as a press should be considered. eg - Our imprint Exposure Publishing is the fastest growing UK publisher, with sales around four times more in one single year than other print on demand publishers in their whole lives. That is notable in itself as well as the fact we offer the best royalties in the self publishing industry at the lowest cost. Our sales outstip lulu.com whom you list. We also have several important authors on our books including MPS, charities and a Procol Harem band member and was the first British publisher to publish a book in Punjabi.
The Diggory Press side do publish rare works that you cannot get anywhere else for love nor money, whether in book form, CD or e-format. Furthermore a lot of the Jonathan Edawrds or John Bunyan books have not been available as single editions for many years - and not all Christians wish to purchase their whole collections of their extensive works from Banner of Truth et al who we acknowledge nonetheless, do a great job. We do not just publish dead theologians, but also world war one titles, nursing history books etc that are also important. I cannot obviously disclose exact sales figures but we are a key figure and sell a lot of books each month worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalindfranklin (talk • contribs)
If these things make your company notable, they should appear in the article. But also note that the article should be verifiable, and claims like "fastest growing", "best royalties", "four times more than", etc. should be footnoted with a reliable source. As for rarity, let's take a test case: Which specific books do you publish by Edwards that can't be had elsewhere? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Rosalindfranklin, if you could provide a list of news articles about your business this might help resolve this issue. If the answer is "none" then that helps resolve this too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Jonathan Edwards in concerned, I believe all his work is available online as well as in a complete collection from Banner of Truth Trust. However very few of his works are available in print singularly at any price. If we go by amazon, there are no other editions of 'The Apocalypse and Final Judgment' available, or the highly important works 'The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners' or 'Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God'. Ditto with some of John Bunyan's works. G A Studdert Kennedy, the famous war poet, his book the Unutterable Beauty was completely out of print and not on the net or CD or anywhere else. Ditto with 'Una and Her Paupers' which we paid a fortune for as a rare antique book to scanned to be made available as well as Linda Richards, the famous nurse's pioneers' life story. We have also published other very rare books not available anywhere else. Our books are regularly reviewed in newspaper, magazines or TV and radio. Media events include The Richard and Judy show (2006) and a host of radio shows. In recognition of our success, we were invited to the Galaxy British Book Awards hosted by Richard and Judy Finnegan in London in March 2007.
At least three of our books have been nominated for awards - 2006 Emme Award for Astronautical Literature, The Lulu Blooker Prize 2007 and The Holyer an Gof Trophy 2007.
We were in the Sunday Times on June 3rd 2007, Writers Forum Magazine, March 2007 and Writers Forum Magazine, February 2007 as well as a host of other smaller newspapers and magazines. I am not always aware of all the publicity as I do not have time to look it up. Everything I said is verifiable (eg we have the sale stats in writing from our distrubutors) but I am not sure whether I can get it from 'published sources' easily for you so will therefore remove those 'unverified' to your standards claims. Rosalindfranklin 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources call those two Edwards books "highly important works"? Moreover, if the works are widely available online and in print from multiple publishers, I don't think printing them as stand-alone volumes qualifies as a notable attribute for your company. I can't speak to the books from other areas, but I must admit I'm dubious. The reviews in various outlets and nomination of your books for minor prizes may mean the books themselves have some notability, but I don't see that that notability thereby transfers to the publisher. As for your company's appearance in various media outlets, are any of these substantial (more than a few sentences paragraphs)? The one from the most significant source, The Sunday Times, is naught but a passing mention of you as a self-publishing outlet. Can you provide links or, failing that, scans of the others if they are more substantial? As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interestingly enough, Diggory Press has published a number of books by Ms. Franklin herself. I pulled her up on the UK Amazon, and she's got respectable sales rankings [12], enough to support notability in her own right. Whether her publisher is thereby notable is another matter, and certainly we've a large WP:COI issue here. Right now I'm neutral on the subject.  Ravenswing  19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pamphlets would be a more appropriate term than books. I would strongly oppose an article on someone publishing such unsubstantial material, if it were based only on amazon sales rank--in fact, i would oppose any article based solely upon amazon sales rank. Back to the press, that amazon lists the material is not relevant a a criterion of notability, for they will list anything if they get their commission--it has about the same evidential value as a listing on eBay. That proper scholarly editions are available at high prices, does not make selling reprints of PD versions at lower prices notable. DGG 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Article looks okay to me, doesn't read like an ad, etc. Author should read WP:CORP and provide references to independent sources writing about the company (press releases don't count). My shallow google search didn't turn up anything promising, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. Capmango 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may look better than my description above because I tried to improve it a bit. Still, I am in favor of its deletion as non-notable. But I'm open to hearing evidence to the contrary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Which reliable sources call those two Edwards books "highly important works"?"

Oh come on, Flex, every protestant theological student knows how important these books are. Don't make me jump through hoops to prove something that is really, really obvious already. They are not in print anywhere else apart from as a complete and volumnous collection of Jonathan Edwards works. Fine if you are studying at Princeton but not for Joe Public. By splitting these books up, not only do we make these more available and affordable, but also we make the public more aware of what he did and did not write and make them more likely to read any of his works. For example, I personally, although interested in theology, would never for leisure buy a complete works of any Christian author, apart from possibly one by James Hudson Taylor, my 'hero'...but then he did not write nearly as much as Bunyan, Owen or Edwards et al. A single edition is a good chance of dipping one's toe in the water to discover whether you like the author or not. A lot of Christians struggle with the idea of eternal damnation, and many are not aware of this book 'The Justice of God etc' because it is hidden in a vast collection with lots of, dare I say, drier material. We have made it readily available and 'out there' for those wishing to research this subject as we have done equally with the apocalypse etc etc. Theology should be more avilable to the 'man on the street'. Anyway, I repeat, that is not the only thing that makes us 'notable', it is just a contributing factor with lots of others. And of course, if you were going to maintain your current argument, then it disqualifies a lot of other publishers listed on Wikipedia.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that, IMHO, you're overstating your case by using the qualifier "highly important". Calvin's Institutes is highly important; Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is highly important; Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is highly important -- their continued appearance in the Western cannon and being continually in print since they were written, their being widely analyzed, studied, and referenced, is evidence enough of this. The same cannot be said of all of Edwards's (or Buynan's or Calvin's or anyone's) other works. They may be highly important in some limited context (e.g., the history of the First Great Awakening, the development of the writer's thought, etc.), but that doesn't make them highly important in general. If you think I am wrong in my assessment of these particular works, provide a reliable source. The burden of proof is on you. But this is all rather secondary to my main point: even if these works were notable, that notability does not automatically transfer to a reprinter of them, particularly when they're widely available in other formats. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia

Do you do this to other publishers too?! Sales figures are rarely published except possibly in places like Publishers Weekly etc by the main players such as Random House and Penguin, and even then you do not get the whole story. As we as a press publish aiming mainly to a niche market we are unlikely ever to make it to rankings page on Publishers Weekly (one day though maybe!), just as Banner of Truth and most other Christian publishers will never make it in there. For example we know a lot of the Samuel Zwemer books will not sell huge amounts (I publish them more as a service than anything else as I have an interest in training and mobiling more Christian missionaries to Islamic countries.) and equally there is not a huge demand for John Owen's books nowadays. However as I feel they should be in print, I make it so. And before you say his collection is already out there, the 16 volume set published by Banner of Truth is US398 dollars on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-John-Owen-Set/dp/0851513921/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3468277-5156716?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181481647&sr=1-1), which let's face it unless you really love Owen you are never going to purchase. However, just because our sales figures do not get onto Publishers Weekly best-seller lists does not make our titles or our sales insignificant. There are lots of other important 'small' to 'medium sized' presses out there equally who keep literature alive whose sales figures are never published. If we all aimed just for the mass-market, then God help us, most classics or academic books would never get published. Here is a link to the Feb. article in Writers Forum, this is not an advert, we do not advertise anywhere as we are too busy as it is - [[13]] I have a scan of a March article in Writers Forum from another author which I do not know how to attach. Both were two to three page articles. I also have a photo of me at the 2007 Galaxy British Book Awards with the soccer player Sir Bobby Charlton who presented one of the awards. I was invited out of only 10 UK publishers (NB the only woman publisher) because of our significant clout in the market place. I have not kept every media article. We were also on Richard and Judy show in 2006 and lots of radio shows which is hard to prove in retrospect. I don't think we should be penalised as being unnoteworthy because we don't have a PR machine feeding out lots of information about us to the press, or collecting all the articles on us that are out there. We are too busy publishing and selling books to bother feeding the media. The only amazon reports you can access (which does not show all our titles but it will do) is for the Diggory Press titles on amazon.com - [[14]] for the Exposure Publishing titles on amazon.com [[15]] and a similar thing can be done on a host of other websites including amazon.co.uk and barnes and noble etc. Note that despite what some think, amazon is not the main player for booksales, we make many more sales to bookshops and libaries.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures aren't a requirement, but they would help substantiate that Diggory is a significant player in the marketplace. If that's not true or can't be substantiated, Diggory could still be notable for some other reason. In any case, all claims to notability must be verifiable from reliable sources. Please see your target at WP:CORP#Primary_criterion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published material kept in real libraries[16]; it certainly doesnt hurt to keep a record of the publishers. John Vandenberg 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like you're employing Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_doesn't_do_any_harm, which is generally not an acceptable argument. I'm proposing deletion on grounds of the notability guidelines in WP:CORP. What say you about that specific complaint? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, CORP is insufficient for companies whose legacy will continue after the company dies. CORP is intended to keep companies of little lasting value out of the encyclopedia, whereas keeping stubs for even minor publishers is feasible on Wikipedia. At the risk of putting my own contributions on the line, consider W. Metcalfe and Son; this publisher would not have been considered notable at the time, but it published a few unique works. Piecing together the history of minor publishers is not easy. John Vandenberg 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not persuaded that either of these entries belong, so I nominated that one for deletion also. If I'm wrong, I'll trust the community to set me straight, but in all fairness to this entry, that one fails on the same criteria -- lack of secondary sources asserting that it is notable. (BTW, if you think WP:CORP is wrong, you should lobby for changes to it.) If it's any comfort to you, I feel like a louse for nominating that one after you mentioned it here, but I also can't help but feel that nomination is appropriate. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Pamphlets would be a more appropriate term than books"

That is highly unfair. These are properly bound books of a high print quality often of a larger than usual paperback size (eg 6 by 9 inch, some bigger). Therefore the same word count can be got into a 108 page than other publishers stretch out into 250 pages. Furthermore, how can you possibly call a book such as [[17]] a pamphlet??? I am sure Edwards and Bunyan and many other Christians would argue with you about their works 'substantiality' which WERE usually originally published as single works. And also this is not about being based solely on whether we are on amazon or respective sales ranks on amazon, the amazon mention is proof that we are out there and that our books are widely available but it is only one factor along with many others.Rosalindfranklin 14:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware how these were published. Before and during the rise of magazines & newspapers in the 18th century, material that would now be of article length was inevitably published separately, in what would be considered today as pamphlets--a commonly-used name at the time was tracts, and such formats for works of religious outreach continued through the 19th century. They were many of them republished as larger collected volumes, & many religious figures also wrote substantial single books; I recognize some members of of each class in the Diggory line. Almost all of these have also been reprinted in other formats--the most accessible is the free online formats, and the most reliable the collected library editions. It is a worthy business enterprise to provide them in convenient printed editions as well. But the notability of the authors and the works does not necessarily transfer to reprinters. There are a few notable reprinters; Pocket Books for example has an article--they republished many thousands of titles during a span of half a century; Diggory has published 150, and existed for only a few years.
Neither is Diggory entirely a specialist publisher: from the article, it has a subsidiary that engages in what the article calls "self-publishing", its line of 800 books would more objectively be called vanity press productions. Vanity presses are not generally notable. That it has published a book for a MP makes neither the book nor Diggory/ Exposure Press notable.
Some publishers are famous, as publishing houses and as individuals, but it generally takes more than 150 published reprints to get there. The usual WP criterion of secondary sources applies: the major publishers have not only scholarly articles but whole books written about them individually: some of the older university presses have multi-volume treatises devoted to their activities over the span of centuries. Some individual editors also have been the subjects of full biographies. Such firms and people are appropriate for WP articles. Even many less important historically known ones have significant mentions in comprehensive works. The study of publishing includes books both academic and of more general interest, and a number of specialist journals--I'm even on the editorial board of one. Diggory can't be expected to be treated in this way yet, and of course it isn't. Optimistically, perhaps you will, and then there will be an appropriate article. You won't have to write it yourself--I'll do it gladly.DGG 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reprints are often substantial reprints of well over 250 pages at 6 by 9 inch size. That is far from a pocket book or a pamphlet or tract. Some of our books have NEVER been reprinted since their first publication and were extremely rare and NOT online anywhere. We do more than publish 'reprint's too, publishing original and novel works. There have been two full length articles this year in Writers News about us (Feb and March). There is also a full length article here: [[18]]. We are far more notable than many other publishers and individuals you have listed here but frankly, do what you want, I have had enough and am out of this discussion.Rosalindfranklin 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your books: I will reiterate, a publisher of notable books is not necessarily notable itself. Can you supply links (or email scans) of the Writers News articles? I'll investigate the Write Words article (UPDATE: I read it, and it is not independent coverage. It is you giving an interview about your book publishing, and you do all the talking. Again, there's nothing in your efforts that's not commendable; it's just that this can't yet be substantiated as notable from reliable sources and is therefore not encyclopedic.) As for other junk, that's not a good argument in your favor (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the same thing as an open directory. There is no reason for someone to create an article about themselves, or their company. If their company is notable enough, it will one day get an article written by a third party. The fact that the creator of this article not only is so involved in trying to keep this article, but also that she has a vested interest in this article, is a big conflict of interest. There are no sources cited. This article was listed for deletion 3 days ago, yet there has not been a single source added to the article, even though many editors raised this concern days ago. We must have multiple non-trivial third party sourced discussing this press, or we need a full length feature from a reliable source, per out notability guidelines. This request has not been met yet. The article also reads a bit like a promotion (i.e. It also has a self-publishing arm to make book publishing and ebook publishing an option for authors from all over the world.). -Andrew c 14:56, 11 June 2007 (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.


Poetry

Akhtar Usman

Akhtar Usman (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 BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 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 delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Amjad

Yusra Amjad (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 an interview, and this is a one-line coverage. There are a few other mentions and self-authored articles, but there is no independent coverage about her. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:13, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=138953531"