Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Literature[edit]

Justice Waits[edit]

Justice Waits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article about a book fails general notability and book notability. Of the cited sources, The first is simply a Google Books page nad the second only has a trivial mention of the book on the 6th page. The third article[1] is a promotional article written by the author of the book, which according to WP:BKCRIT doesn't count for notability. Searching the internet for more coverage has turned up nothing but more trivial mentions. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of weird because the book's existence (and other coverage) shows that the topic that the book covers (the "UC sweetheart murders") are notable. But we don't have an article on that. If we did this should probably be redirected to it as this looks to be the most comprehensive source. The book recounts the events, but yeah there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage on the book itself (though admittedly, I did not look too hard).
So as a really weird AtD if this fails NBOOK we could turn this into a stub on the murder case and have a mention of the book in an aftermath section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian writer[edit]

Slovenian writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for such things, no need for a microstubby list with three entries and actually no entry primarily connected with the topic itself. A09|(talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Gardens (novel)[edit]

Cinnamon Gardens (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Online book stores are not independent or reliable. The authors website is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:BKCRIT. I've done a little clean up on the article, and it could use more. I've also added a section for reviews. This is a new editor's first effort at an article, but they got the basics correct. — Maile (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The New York Times Book Review is solid, as well as the Textual Practice article. Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources from Oaktree are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)[edit]

Reasons to Be Cheerful (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Theodoropoulou[edit]

Vicky Theodoropoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FUCM[edit]

FUCM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find any coverage and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by User:Bamatfucm, and one of the founders of FUCM is Bam. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only published independent sources I could find were: [6][7] [8], which don't establish notability.
Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile[edit]

La guerra civile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 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! 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees[edit]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK, the work of a non-notable author. Has been tagged as such since Feb 2023 without any improvement. Was de-prodded without establishing how it was notable. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find book reviews, or even very many sites to buy the book, further indications on non-notability. No coverage of any kind found. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 4 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil[edit]

Al-Jami al-Kamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think this book is notable as it lacks in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. I tried redirecting to the article about its author but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

striking and withdrawing nomination in the light of sources found by Md Joni Hossain. Mccapra (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that link is dead and it’s not clear what you mean by “the first ever complete collection of sahih hadith.” There have been several much earlier authoritative collections. This sounds like it’s just a mashup of those. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see this video, it will make it clear, https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=263pYfjjZHWouyJ1&v=gHmB5LG1JxU&feature=youtu.be. 59.152.2.172 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok but that’s not an independent source. I’m looking for in-depth coverage of this book by independent reviewers or commentators. Mccapra (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Although Professor Azmi has authored dozens of books on various important Islamic topics, his voluminous compilation of authentic Hadith titled “Al-Jami’ al-Kamil fi al-Hadith al-Sahih al-Shamil” is considered the most important. It is one of the most comprehensive books on Hadith by a single scholar since the dawn of Islam. Azmi has taken pain to collect the authentic Hadiths dispersed in numerous classical books. It is made up of more than 20 volumes, containing about 16,000 Hadiths dealing with various issues such as creeds, rulings, worship, biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), chapters of jursiprudence, interpretation of the Glorious Qur’an and many more. Azmi will be remembered for this great service like those earlier compilers of Hadiths collections such as Imam Bukhari, Imam Mslim, Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhi, Imam al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and Imam Malik."[2]

"The once Hindu youth Banke Lal and today's Sheikh Ziaur Rahman Azmi have done many important and significant works. 'Al Jamiul Kamil Fil Hadees Sahihis Shamil' is one of his most important books. Many learned hadith scholars and Muslim scholars say that this book can be called the only book in the history of the last 1400 years, where only authentic hadiths have been placed without any repetition. 16 thousand hadiths have been compiled in this hadith book. Shaikh Ziaur Rahman Ajmer has spent 15 years of work in this. He has taken the help of more than 200 hadith books in this large work of 20 volumes."[3] 59.152.2.172 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ الحي, عيسى بن عبد الله بن عيسى العبد (1 January 2023). اختيارات الإمام الطرطوشي في قضايا السياسة الشرعية (in Arabic). Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية. ISBN 978-614-496-201-5. Retrieved 28 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. 3 March 2017.
  3. ^ "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019.
These are fanboy comments not policy-based arguments for keeping. Which genuinely independent sources agree with this assessment? Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra - You have a preconceived agenda to delete this Wikipedia page. First you deleted the page unilaterally. Then when it was restored, you try to delete it by organising a vote...and then when you couldn't achieve a consensus, you trash dissent as "fanboy" comments.
You are abusing your position as an editor.
To the substantive. This is the first time - or at any rate - amongst a handful of attempts to compile a comprehensive statement of the sunnah/hadiths. It is an historic achievement. Like all achievements, it will take time to become prominent in an identical way that the now canonical texts like Sahih al-Bukhari took decades to become canonised (see Prof. Jonathan Brown: https://drjonathanbrown.com/books/the-canonization-of-al-bukhari-and-muslim/ ). What you are doing is effectively deleting Sahih al-Bukhari because immediately after publication there were not a slew of peer-reviewed academic journals discussing it! The author died two years after publishing the second edition, this also contributed to the lack of fanfare publicity. That is not a reason to delete.
As for sources, there are some. There could be more. But Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size if every single page required a welter of peer-reviewed articles.
As for al-jami al-kamil's significance, two of the most prominent Islamic academics and missionaries have showered praise on the work:
- Dr Yasir Qadhi - Yale Phd, Medina Munawara Masters. Author and academic [see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZI_ykyv8o ]
- Dr Zakir Naik - Author of dozens of Islamic books and missionary with tens of millions of views. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR1rkq8vs0o ]
This alone is sufficient to establish the work merits a Wikipedia page.
To be clear: A Wikipedia entry does not require readers to agree with an academic work or project. You evidently are desperate to efface it. But your personal views must not be allowed to dictate what information exists to the world.
You are trying to censor information - dismissing opponents as "fanboys". This is not befitting of a Wikipedia Editor.
Do NOT delete. EdKolank (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Please see WP:NBOOK. How does this work meet these criteria? Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find links to read the book, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most pure hadith book in the world after the Quran. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article needs to have numerous tags retained for cleanup and improvement, and more sources would help. In spite of this, several low reliability sources appear to exist, though improved reliability source would be welcome.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low level reliability sources do indeed exist. That is the problem. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book is the most comprehensive compilation of the Prophet's sayings. Salah Almhamdi (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "ড. মুহাম্মাদ জিয়াউর রহমান আজমি (রহ.) যেভাবে বিশ্বে খ্যাতি লাভ করলেন ভারতীয় নওমুসলিম আলেম". Kaler Kantho. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2024. ) # Azmi, Zakir (3 March 2017). "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. Retrieved 27 December 2021. # "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019. #media, news and (31 July 2020). "Indian-Hindu Brahmin who became Islam's Hadith Scholar dies in Saudi Arabia". Etemaad Daily. Retrieved 30 May 2024. #Khalid Hossain, A F M (6 September 2021). "'গঙ্গা থেকে জমজম'-এর লেখক কালজয়ী এক প্রতিভা". Daily Naya Diganta (in Bengali). Retrieved 30 May 2024. #"پروفیسر ضیاء الرحمٰن اعظمیؒ کی رحلت". Daily Jang. 18 August 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2024. # Azmi, Muhammad Khalid (September 2020). گنگا سے زم زم تک کا روحانی و علمی سفر [The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam] (in Urdu). New Delhi: Al-Manar Publishing House. # Siddiqi, Irfan (September 2020). "بلریاگنج سے جنت البقیع تک" [From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi']. Urdu Digest (in Urdu). 60 (9). Lahore: 41–53. Retrieved 27 December 2021. all these independent sources confirm this infotmation that this book is the most comprehensive collection of Sahih hadith till now. 202.134.13.134 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Every single one of these is not in-depth coverage of the book at all, it is coverage about the author. This is the reason I redirected the article about the book to the article about the author. There is no question in my mind that the author is notable for Wikipedia purposes, not primarily as the author of this book, but as a convert with an unusual life story who has devoted his life to scholarship. Not a single one of these sources meets the requirements of WP:BOOK as it is not in depth coverage of the book. Also extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Getting a favourable mention from a newspaper journalist is not that hard, but if you’re maintaining that this is the most pure Hadith book in the world after the Quran, I’d expect that to be supported by an authority such as the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, one or more Grand Muftis, one or more Ministers of Religious Affairs in a Muslim majority country, or one of the representative bodies of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. In fact there are no such sources which mean that this claim is not generally recognised. Mccapra (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • see here, there are two unique established article research papers found in Google Scholar from peer reviewed renowned academic bodies such as University of Sharjah, Mansoura University,University of Sargodha, Lahore Garrison University and Ghazi University.[1][2] the second source mentioned the book as the largest encyclopedia of authentic hadiths (لأكبر موسوعة للأحاديث الصحيحة)

Md Joni Hossain (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those sources. They demonstrate that the book has been the subject of independent critical scholarship, so I am satisfied that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 14:13, 8 June 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 of England[edit]

Literature of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature proposed deletions[edit]

  1. ^ Qahar, Hafiz Abdul, Department of Islamic Studies, University of Sargodha; Shahbaz, Hafiz Muhammad, Lecturer, Islamic Studies, Lahore Garrison University; Akhtar, Jamshed, Lecturer, Department of Islamic Studies, Ghazi University. (20 June 2023). "ڈاکٹر ضیاء الرحمن اعظمی کا " الجامع الکامل فی الحدیث الصحیح الشامل " میں حدیث کی تصحیح و تضعیف اور تطبیق کے اسلوب کا تحلیلی مطالعہ" [An Analytical Study of the Methodology of Authenticating, Weakening, and Implementing Hadiths in "Al-Jami' Al-Kamil fi Al-Hadith Al-Sahih Al-Shamil" by Dr. Zia-ur-Rahman Azmi]. International Research Journal on Islamic Studies (IRJIS). 5 (1): 01–09. doi:10.54262/irjis.05.01.u1. ISSN 2710-3749. Retrieved 8 June 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Abu Talha, Muhammad Yusuf, College of Arabic Language and Islamic Studies, Mansoura University (31 December 2023). "موسوعة الأحاديث الصحيحة المسماة بـ: "الجامع الكامل في الحديث الصحيح الشامل" للأعظمي (دراسة وصفية نقدية)" [Encyclopedia of Authentic Hadiths called: “The Complete Collection of Authentic and Comprehensive Hadiths” by Al-Azami (a descriptive and critical study)]. University of Sharjah Magazine For Sharia sciences and Islamic studies. 20 (4): 294–329. doi:10.36394/jsis.v20.i4.10. ISSN 2616-7166. Retrieved 7 June 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Literature&oldid=1227878929"