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.

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]

Laputa[edit]

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

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search (scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. --Викидим (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229

The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21

The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334

Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30

Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944

These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach[edit]

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

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Winkie Country redirects to Land of Oz (since Jan 2024) and the non-primarysource sourcing is non-existent (both here and in the history of Winkie Country), it is hard to envision a reason to keep this article. I do not expect there to be substantial non-(in-universe) coverage. It would take effort to modify Land of Oz to be a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, this appears to be the best reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, the first and, as far as I know, only book this fictional city appeared in. The article is completely unsourced, and searches brought up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Which is not surprising, considering the city was an incredibly minor part of a single book. Rorshacma (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Lost Princess of Oz is the only book it appeared in. I just checked and it takes up about 15% of the book, but it's just one of many strange lands that are (spoiler alert) overcome by Ozma's friends and Cayke and the Frogman.
I'm going to say keep but rename to List of Oz Places (created by Baum) to conform to List of Oz characters (created by Baum). We recently had an AfD for Land of Ev. The Deadly Desert is another obvious target - it has a fresh GNG notice on it from User:Toughpigs so I'm not the only one that notices. Oblivy (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of Sand[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you're working on an article about a novel, it's always worthwhile to use The Wikipedia Library to find book reviews. That's what I did, and I added several reviews that I found to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references are incorrectly formatted but they are there, and significant magazine coverage pre-internet is generally strongly indicative of notability. BrigadierG (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews added by Eastmain. Toughpigs (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and Library Journal reviews? Looks like sufficient SIGCOV for a book to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyewacket (novel)[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is minimal and does not provide enough information to meet Wikipedia's standards for a comprehensive encyclopedia entry.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendele Olimpului[edit]

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

This article lacks sufficient notability and reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Despite being a children's book, the article does not provide significant coverage in independent sources that demonstrate its impact or importance in literature. Additionally, the article has been tagged for multiple issues, including being an orphan and needing more citations, indicating persistent problems that have not been addressed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing Sherlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find even one review for NBOOK. Aeon Magazine would count for half of NBOOK, except if you follow the link, it's not a review in Aeon Magazine -- it's a forum thread they hosted, posted by the author announcing the book. I can't turn up evidence of a published Aeon review. (Though the book sounds like a fun riff on Connie Willis's stuff.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heightened Senses[edit]

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

nonnotable online story by nonnotable author. Looks like as self-promo SPA - Altenmann >talk 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article seems to basically be one long plot summary without any external input. If anyone wanted to read all that, then they could just read the story itself. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it lacks verifiable sources and reliable references, making it difficult to confirm the accuracy of the information. Additionally, the topic is too broad and speculative, leading to vague and unsubstantiated claims that do not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. --Assirian cat (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of significant coverage in reliable sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 18:54, 23 May 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.

Literature proposed deletions[edit]