This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toLiterature. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Adaptation into manga or anime alone does not automatically satisfy a light novel’s notability underWP:NBOOK, and reliable sources are still required to demonstrate its significance.Htanaungg (talk)08:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.WP:NBOOK criterion 1 directly contradicts this nomination: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". —Xezbeth (talk)10:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be worth updating NBOOK to make it a bit more obvious that notable adaptations can count towards or give notability. I'll open a discussion there.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think criteria 3 does cover adaptations, but it's a tiny bit on the vague side so I can see the nominator's concern. I have opened a discussion asking if we should add a footnote or something along those lines.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)16:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have enough to cross theWP:GNG line as is, and the anime adaptation announcement means additional sources are nearly guaranteed to be made in the near future.JumpytooTalk19:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of immediate SIGCOV, including these articles:[1][2][3][4]. It also gets borderline coverage in the bookRepresenting Children in Chinese and U. S. Children's Literature:[5]. And this is without having done any searches for Chinese-language sources or any reviews of the individual books in the series, which I expect would turn up many more sources.MCE89 (talk)03:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB. A search of Google Scholar does turn up rather a lot of sources about Goethe's Erdgeist so it could plausibly be considered notable:[6][7][8][9]. However, there is still plenty of room atFaust, Part One to write about the Erdgeist; that article badly needs secondary analysis. PerWP:PAGEDECIDE I see no need for a separate article on the topic. Moreover, skimming the first half-dozen sources I found, I couldn't spot anything to verify the current information about Goethe's Erdgeist, so I don't see anything worth keeping or merging from the current article.~ L 🌸 (talk)02:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My summary of the other sourcing available: The article cites another newspaper article that I wasn't able to access, but the title sounds like an interview; while searching, I found a fair number of profiles and interviews that just give this book a very passing mention. I also found a second journal review, inMankind Quarterly 51 (4), p. 490-499; I can access it through my library, but I get spooky "this page is not safe" warnings when I try to go directly to the site, so I don't link it here. The review is certainly sigcov (five full pages byHerbert F. Mataré) but I'm not sure if the journal constitutes a reliable source.
However!WP:NOTPLOT tells us not to have articles that aresummary-only descriptions of works. The book may be notable, but the current article contains nothing but summary. WithWP:PAGEDECIDE in mind, I advise a merge toHamed Abdel-Samad for now; there's plenty of room for it there. It could always be split out again into its own article should that ever be called for. Feel free to ping me to execute the merge if that is the consensus.~ L 🌸 (talk)09:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. Despite this being a fully English book series, I can't find any coverage of it anywhere, whether through databases likeNewspapers.com or a deep Google search. Looks like aWP:GNG failure.SilverserenC00:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I notice it was published & distributed throughScholastic Books' book fairs; I believe some books for these fairs were not available through traditional retailers, which might account for the low footprint. On that hunch, I searchedSchool Library Journal, no results.~ L 🌸 (talk)10:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This exists, but isn't notable. The author's article also has some sourcing issues, but it's not currently up for deletion and as such, would be a reasonable ATD.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I didn't have any luck finding SIGCOV either. I also find it quite hard to imagine this type of boxed set becoming notable in general.MCE89 (talk)16:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to locate any coverage that matched this specific boxed set. The ISBN in the article results in 'not found' when searching open library or world cat.Gab4gab (talk)17:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly don't even know if this exists. I can't find any record of something by this name ever getting released. If it was ever released it was quite a while back and it gained zero coverage. Honestly, most box sets aren't notable. Publishers put them together all the time, especially around Christmas. Sometimes the books aren't even specifically printed for the box set, as they may just be a way to utilize spare copies floating around. They're that common. It's exceptionally rare for a collection to get enough coverage to justify inclusion.
Since there's really no good place to redirect to and because we don't really even have a way of proving that this exists, my recommendation is to just delete this and remove any mention of it from Wikipedia. That last part might seem a bit overkill, but if we can't prove it exists we also can't prove that this wasn't someone trying to sneak a hoax onto Wikipedia. Low stakes hoaxes have been found on here before, after all. Not that I particularly think this is a hoax, just that we can't rule that out. Any place that does mention this looks to be a mirror of Wikipedia.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack It is surely non notable (can't find any source that mentions it) but it existed. See[10] the same set on eBay. So not a hoax but firmly non-notable. Though, are there even notable box sets? I wouldn't think so.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did better than I! As far as box sets, I feel like there was one, but I can't recall it offhand. I think it was more of a general collection than a box set itself, admittedly.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't either, and the one source provided (putatively the subject's article in Banglapedia) returns 404 Not Found for me. (Did it work for you,Doug?) Following the link en.banglapedia.org from our articleBanglapedia leads to a page that I understand still less, but it proclaims there is no such website.Bishonen |tålk15:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep In my experience, when another reputable encyclopedia has an entry for a topic, Wikipedia generally should have one too. In addition to the 275-word entry in the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh'sBanglapedia, there's half a page inShamsuzzaman, Abul Fazal (1992).Who's Who in Bangladesh Art Culture Literature (1901-1991). Tribhuj Prakashani. p. 171.OCLC28114771, and at least a couple sentences inRizvi, S. N. H., ed. (1969).East Pakistan District Gazetteers: Dacca. East Pakistan Government Press. p. 335.OCLC153480.
Kibriya'sHistory of the Press in Bangladesh mentions him only briefly among ten journalists who established themselves in Dacca at the time of partition, but it does so in lauditory terms. Kibriya wrote, "All of them turned out as journalistic jewels of the country". The other sources show that this isn't idle talk. Nasir Ali achieved significant things: he founded a successful publishing house, he was editor of the children's section of a major national newspaper for over two decades, he wrote numerous books, and he received theBangla Academy Literary Award in 1967 (on its own, probably a pass ofWP:ANYBIO).
Because Nasir Ali wrote in Bengali, almost all substantial secondary coverage of him is likely in Bengali. Because he died in 1975, most of it is likely offline. Online examples include[11] and[12]. Even without considering offline Bengali works, the topic meetsWP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk)19:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No sources have been added yet to the article in question. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!01:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't find any sources covering this specific sourcebook for GURPS. It's already on the list of such books and doesn't appear to have notability to extend it to having its own article. Unless there's specialist media coverage somewhere of this book, it appears to be aWP:GNG failure.SilverserenC01:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!00:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: