Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Shortcuts

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:

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Literature

How to $ell Your Wargame Design

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

I believe this article fails WP:NBOOK. Aside from the one source listed in the article, a detailed search shows no other coverage of this book. If that one source wasn't listed, it would be hard to prove this book even exists. SJD Willoughby (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lou Zocchi per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The only source I could find was this review in Space Gamer. A second source would allow the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid-Lindgren-Preis

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

No sources and no apparent notability from web search. Note that the current Swedish award has an article and is widely reported on, but the defunct German one has no media coverage. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Dreams

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

Fails the books notability guideline. The article is based mostly on primary sources and has only one independent review, which does not establish the notability of the subject. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more useful sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Australia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the problems with the article. I created it during a time when I still had the impression, that fulfilling notability is not considered as important if the author is very well known. Egan's novel Schild's Ladder for example up until a few months back didn't even have a single reference and almost completely consisted of only plot summary. It still contains not even a single review (although I intend to add the one I've found for the german article soon). The same holds for "TAP". I only realized afterwards that it was because the articles were created in 2003 and 2007 respectively, when the guidelines in their current form probably didn't even exist yet. Afterwards, I tried to improve some articles already created, but didn't find much more to add to establish notatbility. Hence if the article gets deleted, I'm okay with that. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luminous (book), the Egan book this story is part of (and that the above mentioned review is for). No indepedent notablity. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

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

The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [1]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading here [3], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

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

One review (which is questionable reliability wise), nothing else found in a search. Self-published. Does not pass NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found this work used as reference in others: here, here and here. Scholar doesn't bring up much more. Also listed here. Not much else. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

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

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Military. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy

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

Reference book. Stub since forever. No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Previously deprodded. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least four reviews which I have added to the page, 3 of which are decently lengthy, one of which is less so but still sigcov. NBOOK requires 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a few other reviews as well, passes GNG and NBOOK. Shapeyness (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, for references added. Toughpigs (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Newly added sources are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McCall: The Solid Light Films and Related Works

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

Only one reliable source, I think. Only other thing I found is a few sentences from Reference & Research book news, which like that publication always does is more about the book's publication and carries no evaluative material on its content. There's also the kultureflash review which I am very uncertain of the reliability of, can't find any indications. If it is reliable I guess that makes two? Can anyone find anything else? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

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

I was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Travel and tourism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of India

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

Fails WP:NBOOK tagged for notability since Januray of last year. One unreliable review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and India. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, I noticed the same thing, was gonna AfD myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rias Gremory

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

Character appears to fail standalone notability, and much of the article seems to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. The vast majority of the article is unsourced aside from primary references to episodes of the anime, and almost all the secondary references are only in the "reception" section. Almost none of these references meet WP:SIGCOV: 1 only briefly covers Highschool DxD, and is mostly about Jamie Marchi, 2 is primary, 3-23 are WP:USERG, and 24-29 are just describing merchandise, and most of them are USERG. 30 is the only reference that may be a reliable secondary source, but the article does not give significant coverage to Rias, and her cosplay is not ranked particularly high. Almost nothing about Rias appears on Google Scholar, nothing at all on JSTOR, and Google News only contains trivial mentions of Highschool DxD in general, and almost none of them are specific to Rias. The article overall reads like something from a Highschool DxD fan wiki, and Rias seems to lack any standalone notability. This article should be merged into List of High School DxD characters in a greatly abridged form. Masskito (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Extremely selectively, per nom. Rias is not independently notable and the article is WP:REFBOMBed with trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of High School DxD characters per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage that doesn't quite break passed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. It's best to mention this as part of an article about a notable topic, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Time

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBOOK, no reviews or any other info on the net DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, they were all released around the same time, and lack WP:SIGCOV, fail WP:NBOOK, have no reviews or any other info on the net:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references patently fail WP:SIGCOV, and nothing on Google Scholar, Google News, or JSTOR. A Google search only brings up listings of the book. No evidence of notability. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedpost (book)

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

One solid review already linked in the page, nothing else to fulfill NBOOK. Redirect to Shobhaa De? This on Google Books says something about it but I can't figure out if it's useful since the preview cuts off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shobha De: Per nomination, this does not meet WP:NBOOK all by itself. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article written as an essay, test mode or a kind of draft that is not ready to be published should be moved to the testing area or it could be deleted and written again. I don't know much about books but I do know about the minimal relevance that is needs to exist here on Wikipedia. --Alon9393 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone manage to look at what the Google Books link is for? It looks like sigcov but I really can't tell. :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shobha De: I haven't been able to find sources through Google Scholar, Newspaper Archive, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, or Booklist. I found a brief mention on Proquest (Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English) but no SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Banker, Ashok (1999). "Penguin Books India: Speedpost". Indian Review of Books. p. 28. Retrieved 2024-09-18 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "... Then again, never before has there been anyone quite like Shobha Dé. The letters themselves are readable, as Dé's writing always is. There's even a lot of good advice here. And some genuine insights and observations into Dé's extremely balanced and sensible approach to parenting. No argument with that at all. But the good sense is constantly overshadowed by one inescapable fact: Speedpost and its accompanying hype does more to introduce use to Dé's six children than anything else. To launch them, so to speak. To present these six specimens of perfect parenting with a flourish. This, rather than the good advice, is what you're left with at the end of this book, if you can call it a book. In previous ages, an aristocratic parent would organize a sumptuous 'coming-out' party for her scion when she came of age. A debutante ball. In an age where the media itself is one big high society party, Speedpost provides the ultimate debutante ball for Dé's six children. In doing so, she publicly exposes even that most private of human areas: a parent and child's intimate relationship. That itself damages Dé's claim to good parenting irreparably."
2. Bose, Brinda (2000-01-03). "Book review: Shobha De's 'Speedpost'". India Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-18. Retrieved 2024-09-18.
  The review notes: "The most important fact about these letters authored by De is that they were never sent - by speedpost, e-mail or snail mail - to any of her children at any time of their lives. They were created as part of an innovative new project launched at the beginning of 1999 by a best-selling fiction-writer, as a millennium gift for her six children (and herself and her publisher, inconsequentially. ... The book is a feel-good autobiographical tale with a structural innovation - but it comes in a spontaneous-and-personal disguise, and the fakeness of the enterprise leaps from between the lines. ... But De is climbing the bestseller charts."
3. Patidar, Renu (2013). Shobha De's Contribution to Post-colonial Indian English Fiction (PhD thesis). Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya. pp. 193–195. ProQuest 2314278468.
  The PhD thesis notes: "Speedpost. This is one of De's best books and she has dedicated it purely to her children. The letters are about living, loving, caring, and coping with this world. She touches almost each and every emotion of the human mind and slowly but carefully prepares the children to face the world. She tells her children to think rationally and be witty to act. Her tone is soft, persuasive and lovable. Her intentions are worried and positive as a mother of young growing children. Each letter is written separately to a different child covering topics like—family values and tradition, and other dilemmas of parents. She knows growing up kids have their own anxieties and problems and parent's harsh and cruel behavior is only in their intention for the child's good. She is not hesitant to discuss sensitive topics with her children as she understands the need of the time and wants them to know what they should but correctly and through someone experienced and guiding."
  The PhD thesis notes: "It is one of her bestselling books. It is close to anyone's heart who reads it. This is a firm slap on the face of contemporary critics who tell that her work is erotic, cheap and outright thrash. Here in this book one doesn't find the three or four letter word, literary none. She knows what else sells in this world except eroticism and she bags that in her book. Themes which can be categorized as love, emotions, family and above all mother. She mentions in the initial page 'God must be a mother'."
  The PhD thesis spends a few additional paragraphs discussing the book.
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Muteba, Bertha (2007). Curry, Jennifer; Ramm, David; Rich, Mari; Rolls, Albert (eds.). World Authors, 2000–2005. New York: H. W. Wilson Company. p. 152. ISBN 978-0-8242-1077-9. Retrieved 2024-09-18 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Dé next published Speedpost: Letters to My Children about Living, Loving, Caring and Coping with the World (1999), which touched on family values and adolescent anxieties, written in the form of a series of letters to her six children. "The letters were a literary device to raise certain issues. It was my way of marking [the new millennium]. And my kids loved it too," she told Subha J. Rao for the national Indian newspaper the Hindu (February 10, 2003). The book has found a large audience and has been translated into Hindi (the official language of India) and Marathi (spoken mainly in the Indian state of Maharashtra and in the central part of the country), with upcoming versions in Malayalam (spoken by about 35 million people, mainly in southwest India) and Gujarati (the official language of the Indian state of Gujarat on the country's west coast, spoken by about 40 million people)."
  2. Krishnan, Mini (2005). "Letters (India)". In Benson, Eugene; Conolly, L.W. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English (2 ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415-278850. ProQuest 2137908344.
    The book notes: "Shobha Dé, the pulp fiction writer, has used the epistolary form in her non-fiction book, Speedpost: Letters to My Children about Living, Loving, Caring and Coping with the World (1999)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Speedpost to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Thank you! This is enough for me to change my vote to keep. Also, how did you manage to look at the google books preview? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs). Thank you for revising your position! Here are some Google Books searches I did:

Speedpost Shobhadid
"special human bond there is . In this book , best"
"and child in the twenty - first century : family values and tradition"
"growing pains and adolescent anxieties about love , sex and friendship"

Each Google Books search revealed more of the book's text in the search results. I used the quote at the end of each search to do my next search. This allowed me to combine all the quotes together in Banker 1999. If you want the text before a quote, you can use the asterisk character at the beginning of the search:

"*special human bond there is . In this book , best"

In Google Books, this returns:

"... most special human bond there is . In this book , best - selling author Shobha De writes a series of letters to her six children on the key concerns of every mother and child in the twenty - first century : family values and tradition"

This approach works in many cases but doesn't always work. If the page has a header or footer that's repeated on every page, that could be included in the result and make it impossible to get the text. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources from Cunard are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Unadulterated Cat

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

I managed to find one brief newspapers.com review of this book, but nothing else except passing mentions. Redirect to Terry Pratchett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: published three times in English and translated into this many languages, there's surely something? -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I checked newspapers.com, I checked Proquest, I checked EBSCO, I checked Gale, I checked archive.org, I checked google books, news and scholar; I got nothing except for writings mentioning the "real cat" concept in passing and the one short review. It is possible there is coverage under one of the foreign language titles but that's relatively unusual for it to get coverage like that when it didn't in English. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Squeaks by with two significant treatments~~ found at archive.org:

Andrew Butler, An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett - 2 full pages -[4]
John Blake, Terry Pratchett : the spirit of fantasy : the life and work of the man behind the magic - 21 paragraphs - [5]

'~~Redirect to Terry Pratchett as an ATD - keeps the page history and redirects are cheap~~

Keep based on sources identified by @[[User:Cunard|]. Oblivy (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Which two pages cover it in depth in the first book? I can't find anything besides a brief mention on page 23. The second one has about two sentences of coverage spread over two pages; IMO not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the first one now. My browser was screwed. That's one source (at about one page). Second one is still not enough to count towards notability IMO, so we're halfway there PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs about a short book isn't nothing but you're entitled to your opinion as am I. Sorry about leaving off the page refs. Oblivy (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy It would be fine if it was actually "two paragraphs" but literally all it says about the book is this:

"Cats feature heavily in two books in Pratchett's back catalogue - in one, perhaps, in a less serious way than in the other. The Unadulterated Cat (illustrated by Gray Jolliffe) is a stream of anecdotes that will please cat lovers everywhere, and perhaps amuse the not-so-cat-stricken too through its excellent artwork." PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I was misreading the reference as being to one of the cats within the Unadulterated Cat rather than a separate book. Oblivy (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Skimming through 10 pages of Google finds either online stores selling the book, or just brief reviews. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning a delete/redirect but I'm too split on this to vote. There's another very short review in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and what appears to be a paper analyzing the Russian translation here, but the machine translation isn't enough for me to determine whether this should count. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Butler, Andrew M., ed. (2007). An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Oxford: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 389–390. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3. ISSN 2782-4543. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Illustrated by Gray Jolliffe, this is a humorous 'non-fiction' volume which discusses the true nature of cats, how they behave and how human beings interact with them, complete with cartoons complementing the text. It was originally published in a large paperback format by Gollancz in an edition of 50,250. A standard paperback followed in 1992, running to 42,750 copies. In 1995 Gollancz printed a version with a new cover—releasing 10,000 copies. Gollancz released it under their Vista imprint in 1996, with another 5,000 copies. In 1999 a version was put out by Orion—an imprint connected to the same company that owned Gollancz—and a hardback finally appeared in 2002, with some additional illustrations. The book has been translated into Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, and Swedish, and follows in the tradition of such cartoon books as Simon Bond's One Hundred and One Uses of a Dead Cat (1981) and Charles Platt's How to Be a Happy Cat (1987), the latter also illustrated by Jolliffe. These often serve as stocking fillers, especially for cat lovers, at Christmas."
2. Vorobets, T. A.; Gerdt, E. V.; Lobkova, E. V. (2023). "Проблема интерпретации окказиональных имен собственных в цикле стихов Т. Элиота «Популярная наука о кошках, написанная Старым Опоссумом» и повести Т. Пратчетта «Кот без дураков» и особенности их передачи в русскоязычных переводах" [The problem of interpretation of occasional proper names in T. S. Eliot's cycle of poems "Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats" and T. Pratchett's novel "The Unadulterated Cat" and the peculiarities of their rendering in Russian translations]. Philology. Theory & Practice (in Russian). 16 (6): 1920–1929. doi:10.30853/phil20230291. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The abstract notes: "The paper addresses the ways of naming presented in T. S. Eliot’s poetic cycle and in T. Pratchett’s novella, which are humorous encyclopaedias about the life of cats. The aim of the paper is to determine the peculiarities in the approach to the creation of proper names in these works, as well as to identify the principles of their rendering in Russian translations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in developing a contrastive classification of proper names according to the ways of their creation and in comparing their translation variants. The work discusses in detail the ways of word formation used by T. S. Eliot and T. Pratchett and offers possible interpretations of cat names"
3. Tyce, Cathy (1992-11-26). "Just purr-fect for the cat lover". Kent Evening Post. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Real cats cause havoc. They refuse the food you buy them then and take the food off your plate. They refuse to use the litter tray and they jump on the knee of the only cat hater in the room. In short, they do exactly what they want. But whatever the feline short-comings, we cat lovers are hooked. And we can't help but recognise our own beloved moggies in Terry Pratchett and Gray Jolliffe's amusing book. They've launched a Campaign for Real Cats—to replace the "fizzy keg cats", the "boring mass-produced cats" with the real, old-fashioned proper kind. If you like cats, you'll laugh ruefully at this funny little book. But if you're not a feline fan, it will just confirm your prejudices."
4. Donald, Colin (2001-12-09). "New Paperbacks. The Unadulterated Cat: Terry Pratchett and Gray Jolliffe". The Daily Yomiuri. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The review notes: "The list of writers fixated on cats is a long and strange one, including T.S. Eliot, Doris Lessing and Anthony Powell. These otherwise somewhat austere personalities have all immortalized their family moggies in written effusions that, to the non-cat lover (especially the dog people) are about as palatable as fur balls, as well as being hilariously out of character. Fans of Terry Pratchett, author of the massively successful fantasy Discworld series, may be surprised that he is a cat maniac too. This collection of funny cat stories, insouciantly illustrated by the cartoonist Gray Jolliffe, is strictly for diehard cat people, who will love it."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Harrison, David (1989-10-28). "A walk on the Wilde side..." Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Most unexpected newcomer is The Unadulterated Cat (Gollancz, £3.99), the complete lowdown on our feline friends from Terry Pratchett, whose normal territory is outer space. Anyone who appreciates Yaargeroffoutofityarbastard as the only possible name for a REAL cat will love this."
  2. Job, Patricia (1990-03-26). "Paperbacks". Quesnel Cariboo Observer. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "The Unadulterated Cat is full of cleverly-written (by Terry Pratchett with cartoons by Gray Jolliffe) passages such as the following: "On the one hand, we have these great tawny brutes that sit yawning under the hot veldt sun... and on the other there's these little things that know how to sleep on top of off-peak heaters and use cat doors. Not much in-between, is there?" Actually, what's "in-between" is the subject of this fun book the not-quite-so civilized cat that lurks inside almost any lap cat. (McClelland And Stewart, $8.95)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Unadulterated Cat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough for me to change my vote to Keep. Would withdraw but opposing votes have been presented. Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Dhimmitude

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

This work has no clear claim to notability. There's one review, as basically the lone source (saying the book is tendentious polemic), but that is not enough to pass muster per WP:NBOOK, which, in its most basic form, demands at least two, non-trivial reviews. That leaves us with a single source and no notability. Delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? There are five reviews listed in the article at present. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nomination rationale is incorrect. There are five full length reviews listed in the further reading section. What PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under SK3: Clearly enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to those already in the article, there's also reviews in Mediterranean Politics ([6]), Digest of Middle East Studies ([7]) and Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte [de] ([8]). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MP link doesn't go anywhere if you're not logged in, but the DOMES review seems viable. I guess the German one counts too, if not very useful unless someone plans to translate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? It's still a review that counts for notability. Just because you can't access the link doesn't mean it's not countable for notability. Other languages sources are perfectly fine. What?? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Sorry about the MP one, please check if this T&F link works through TWL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629390410001679982 ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doi appears to be producing a different review. May be a number off. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to download the PDF and scroll to the fifth page of the PDF. The preview only shows the first apge. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 It isn't, T&F journals are just weird and throw all their book reviews in an issue under one pdf and DOI. The review is from pages 138-139 and is 800 words long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly didn't check the further reading, because the further reading isn't meant to be for core sources that should be used as references. That seems to yield one more good review. Then a link that just hangs, MEQ which is unreliable, something that looks like a blog, and a dead link to a student newspaper. Still not impressive, although one could use the JSTOR source to expand the article to say that the book is not only tendentious polemic, but also "remarkably ignorant". And I suppose that is a source stating that the suggest is "remarkable" in its ignorance, so there's that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading is often used for putting sources that are establishing notability but have not been incorporated into the page yet. Stubs aren't against the rules. Other than MEQ all the further reading reviews are fine. The link doesn't matter with academic journals, it's extremely easy to identify and verify that a review from these publications exists, which is what counts for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to yield one more good review. Is that not enough for NBOOK, which only requires two reviews? Then there's the other three reviews I mentioned, which you can't just wave away since they are in a different language (WP:RSUE) ~~or are inaccessible to you (WP:PAYWALL)~~. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) strike point about inaccessibility. Sorry, I forgot that I was accessing it from my library's Wifi, which let me access it even without a login. I wasn't aware that accessing it from elsewhere would show next to no info about the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so. Can't really maintain my initial premise. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. But an argument can be made to merge this back with Bat Ye'or. Much of how scholars view this book has to do with how scholars view Ye'or's various theses on Islam in general.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Thieves' Labyrinth

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

A novel that I cannot find enough sources for it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I think the Historical Novel Society source can be considered reliable, but the "eurocrime" site does not appear to be one, meaning there is only a single potentially reliable source here. I have tried various searches, but have been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage that goes beyond a name-drop in reliable sources of any kind. The closest I found was this article on Kirkus, but the top states that it is a Sponsored Blog post, and so cannot count as a review for the purposes of establishing notability. Neither the author nor book series has an article, so I was unable to identify any potential Redirect or Merge target, and with only one source, it does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As it does have the one source, I figured I would bring it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, to see if anyone else could find any other potentially reliable sources or reviews for it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's very odd that we have an article on the third book and none of the others. Other books in the series have reviews, ones on Proquest from the Lincolnshire Echo, the Times Literary Supplement, this that I am unsure of the reliability of, this interview by a major publisher. A series article could probably be stitched together from these, instead of covering the individual books, but I don't have strong feelings here. Also according to this source "James McCreet" is actually a pseudonym of Matt Stanley. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about the three book series using the sources identified above. The Kirkus review may be usable as the blog is by an experienced writer "J. Kingston Pierce is both the editor of The Rap Sheet and the senior editor of January Magazine." There was an article about the author James McCreet and articles about the other two books in the series but they were all deleted as promotional under speedy deletion criteria G11. I missed the speedy deletion of the other articles but objected to the deletion of this one and edited out the promotional content. The author article was restored to userspace here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy (novel)

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

Fails GNG and poor sourcing ((Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA)) (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures. Found a few passing mentions, a weird linguistics sources that uses this as an example without commentary, and an interview with the author about the book. Nothing usable for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above rationales. No indication of external notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Taking of Chelsea 426

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

Fails WP:NBOOK lacks WP:SIGCOV no production info nor reviews Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Per nom, completely fails all criteria. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above suggestion. Searched, found nothing besides 2 sales listings without commentary and an interview with the author in a doctor who magazine about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above rationales. No indication of notability shown or illustrated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 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 keep Tawny Taylor, and redirect Sex and the Single Ghost to it‎. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawny Taylor

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only work by this author with an article, and appears similarly non-notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, United States of America, and Michigan. toweli (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor as multiple books have been the subject of review in RS, which meets NAUTHOR. Redirect Sex and the Single Ghost . Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor. Her books have many reviews and so she passes NAUTHOR. Redirect the book article to it, even the library journal piece has no coverage it's only a listing. Only thing I found was this review of uncertain reliability, which is only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor; redirect Sex and the Single Ghost to Tawny Taylor. She's written 50+ erotic novels with many reviews on Internet sites, a few of which may meet Wikipedia standards of reliability; in any case, many of these are listed as references in the chapter about her in the Gale Contemporary Authors book so that's something. But what gets this bio over the line is that two of her other more "mainstream" books written under her pseudonym Tami Dane have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly. Have expanded the article to include more information about her various book series and critical reception, as at the time of nomination, it was mostly just a list of books. Sex and the Single Ghost turns up nothing via Wikipedia Library except that listing in Library Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements and various reviews. Giving the commentary from those secondary sources of books which are not notable in themselves a home here seems the best solution. I.e. merge and redirect Sex and the Single Ghost here. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on arguments above. Its a clear keep. She is a major author. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 17 September 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.

BookBrowse

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

No WP:SIGCOV of this book review site; references are mostly mentions; awards don't appear to be particularly notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BookBrowse has been around a long time and well known in the book world. It is often cited by other reliable sources, such as The Cambridge History of Postmodern Literature[9], The New York Times[10][11], and dozens of volumes of Contemporary Authors[12]. It was singled out in Public Libraries (journal)[13], The Public Librarian's Guide to the Internet[14], the Chicago Tribune[15], The Bookseller[16], Publishers Weekly ("Book Site Gives Online Buying That Old Store Feel". 6 January 1999); In 1998 was featured by Yahoo! as its Incredibly Useful Site of the Day. It would be nice to have a lengthy article dedicated solely about the site, but these are often hard to find for many topics. The question for trivial coverage is if there is enough material to write an article with, and that has been done. -- GreenC 22:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. I also found a decent amount of Newspapers.com coverage, without going too in depth here are some of the sources I found [17] [18] [19] [20]. Also some coverage in these books [21]. Probably more if I looked harder, there's definitely more sigcov in the sea of mentions but I think this is enough for me to vote keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

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

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Ether: as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 13:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s only one source that does more than list or suggest how to pronounce this person’s name. That badly fails our foundation of significant coverage, and is borderline original research. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Typically, I'd close this discussion as a Redirect as an ATD but there is no mention of this subject at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 September 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 no consensus‎. After three weeks, there was no consensus on whether to keep or delete the page. There seems to be a consensus to rename the article to Islamic Law and Constitution, which I went ahead and did. This can be reverted without an AfD if there's consensus on the Talk page to do so. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [22]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [23]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [24] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [25]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [26] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [27] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.

Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [28]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Can you please provide a link to any previous AFDs on this article subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no evidence has been presented in this discussion to suggest the subject meets WP:NBOOK so I still favour a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for context here is the past AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this easy, here is the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move cum Keep: I support the move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep, as suggested by @James500. The book “Islamic Law and Constitution” consists of two parts, and the book “Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan” is essentially a verbatim reproduction of the first part of “Islamic Law and Constitution.” While speaking of its content list, the main book mentions only the chapters names, the verbatim one includes the subtitles as well. For further content verification, please refer to the following links: The Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan, Islamic Law and Constitution — Ainty Painty (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainty Painty If you want to suggest a move that is fine, but I don't really think you can vote "rewrite", since someone has to do the work for that. I highly doubt anyone will ever rewrite this article, in any case, and shall we change the name it will merely languish the same way it is now but with a different title, with content barely about it. But oh well, that's how it is in any case, and stubs aren't against the rules. I still disagree on a move since I think these are separate topics. Moving in a proper sense here would basically be making a whole other article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA I understand your concerns regarding the move and rewrite. I am willing to take on the task of rewriting the article to ensure it accurately reflects the content and significance of the book. Furthermore, could you please guide me on where to start with the rewrite? Should I begin within the existing article, or is there another approach you would recommend? Since we now know this is part of the aforementioned book, it can serve then as a redirect (after the move). If necessary we can also mention this in the article to provide clarity. Thank you for your cooperation. Ainty Painty (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ainty Painty, just FYI, an AFD can not have a "Move" or "Rewrite" closure. Those are editing choices that can be discussed if an article is "Kept". Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says we cannot decide to move a page at AfD, and I think that WP:NOTBURO applies. James500 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Islamic Law and Constitution if an article is written: This book is an independently reprinted part of Islamic Law and Constitution(the purchasing guide at the back reads "A Part of "Islamic Law and Constitution""). This part does not meet NBOOK, as far as I can tell, but Islamic Law and Constitution does. As such, this article should be deleted, unless an article is written for Islamic Law and Constitution, in which case merging usable material would be better. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:02, 19 September 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Contents

Literature

How to $ell Your Wargame Design

Astrid-Lindgren-Preis

Transition Dreams

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy

Anthony McCall: The Solid Light Films and Related Works

A Fête Worse Than Death

Ghosts of India

Rias Gremory

Deep Time

Speedpost (book)

The Unadulterated Cat

Islam and Dhimmitude

The Thieves' Labyrinth

Autonomy (novel)

The Taking of Chelsea 426

Tawny Taylor

BookBrowse

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

Literature proposed deletions