Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

WP:DSLIT
WP:DELSORT/LIT
WP:DELSORT/BOOK

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Literature[edit]

The Politics of Uncertainty[edit]

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

I don't see much for this article being a standalone one. Can a redirect work here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book seemingly has reception, but that section is horribly written. I can't make out what "For ^[10] this volume illuminates" is supposed to mean. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Andy Stirling, the co-editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Although the book is cited in numerous articles and books, I did not find book reviews or other significant coverage of the book in my searches for sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
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) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this input. I tried to improve the obscure paragraph noted by User:Geschichte. Other than that I regret that I have not much to add to what written in the talk page. The book is well cited as you note, and its presence on the pages of Wikipedia may encourage others to join the discussion on this important topic. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested by Cunard. I was able to access several of the citations in the "reception" section, but they are simple citations of the work, not reviews or a particular indication of lasting influence.
- The first sentence, For[10] this volume illuminates how governments and private actors... is citing an article on the same topic, which says of this book nothing more than: STS scholars also argue that many governmental and organisational bodies (e.g. insurance) that attempt to deal with non-knowledge formulate uncertainty as risk and so, by rendering non-knowledge into calculable risk, reduce the world in particular ways that favour managerialism and de-emphasise other ways of knowing and living (Scoones & Stirling, 2020).
- The second footnote in reception is a podcast, non-RS
- The third footnote in reception, attached to the statement The book is cited in debates about sustainability transition and transformation refers to this sentence and footnote: Hence, the issue sometimes is not around changing policy for the better but instead fighting a malignant transformation [1], footnoting [1] At this juncture, we argue that it is important to embrace the inherent uncertainty in transformations and answer the questions put forth by Scoones and Stirling (2020) clearly before branding any transformation as benign or malign: ‘What methods, processes and mobilizations can tilt the balance towards more positive outcomes?'
- The fourth footnote in reception has nothing in the source other than what's currently quoted in the article.

It's not nothing, but it's also not really enough coverage to write an effective article from. I don't think any of these sources actually provide information for a reception section -- they are just very brief summaries of the main points of the book. This is the sort of book that ought to be able to get two reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: This is usually the case. I support that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Andy Stirling, per Cunard and LEvalyn, as a viable ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Saad Abdullah[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given his novels and play I think he may possibly be notable under WP:AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions[edit]