Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature

List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States

List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States (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)

Indiscriminate and poorly sourced list, with a majority of listed titles' differences being so trivial there is no plausible way to be document anything more than the names themselves. Could have substituted either with another country and still be this indiscriminate. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Music, Television, Video games, Lists, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete - As interesting as the topic is (I could certainly rattle off a few off the top of my head), it doesn't seem to have any significant coverage as a category. Most instances probably also aren't properly sourceable other than by pointing at an American thing that calls it by one name and a British thing that calls it by another (which is probably WP:SYNTH anyway). Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Category:American and British English differences shows these lists are common. Anyway, this specific topic gets significant coverage in reliable sources. https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/sep/13/us-uk-book-titles-changed https://geekireland.com/5-movies-different-titles-uk-ireland-usa/ Dream Focus 06:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Content this inane invites more. Wikipedia is a better reference without it. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." I will show below that "works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. Bell, Terena (2018-09-13). "A book by any other name: why does the US change so many titles?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2026-02-21. Retrieved 2026-06-07.

     The article notes: "There was widespread reaction when the Philosopher’s Stone in the title of the first Harry Potter book became the Sorcerer’s Stone after its US publisher, Scholastic, decided that children might confuse wizards for Plato. But hordes of books have had their titles changed in America. Disproportionately, they are mysteries. Twenty-five Agatha Christie titles have been “localised” but unfortunately, their new names do not add to their allure. Instead, they merely baffle Brits who, when buying Murder in Three Acts or Poirot Loses a Client on vacation, discover they are Three Act Tragedy or Dumb Witness in disguise."

  2. Rentoul, Josh (2019-03-02). "The Top 10: Titles changed for foreign markets". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2025-12-30. Retrieved 2026-06-07.

     The article notes: "This has been in the Listellany production line since about 1998, when JK Rowling’s first book was published in the US as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. A lot of good nominations for this one, so I’ve made it a Top 20. In no particular order... 1. The Golden Compass. US title of Northern Lights, by Philip Pullman."

  3. Hahn, Devin (2023-11-06). "Video Mini Explainer: Why the UK and US Can't Agree on Book Titles". The Brink. Boston University. Archived from the original on 2026-02-10. Retrieved 2026-06-07.

     The article notes: "In our video mini explainer, Rezek breaks down the complex history behind why the same book often ends up with different titles on opposite sides of the pond."

  4. Bauer, Jennifer (2017-08-01). "Same movie, different name: UK/US title changes explained". Lewiston Tribune. Archived from the original on 2026-06-07. Retrieved 2026-06-07.

     The article notes: "Commentary by Kaylee Brewster: Sometimes when films release in other languages, the title changes to avoid a loss in translation, but then sometimes even going from English to English titles can change as the movie moves from the United States to the United Kingdom. Here are some movies..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep this useful and interesting list, per arguments of Cunard above. Note that differences only of spelling (honour/honor etc) are specifically excluded, so that this list includes only titles with significant differences. It needs more sources and explanatory notes, but it's a valid list and an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This list may be interesting but I agree that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Grouping vastly different items together just because they have different names in the UK/US is a very trivial link. This may be fine to discuss as a concept but not as a comprehensive list. OceanHok (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Catfurball (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Passes NLIST per Cunard's sources. Can be fixed if editors think it falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE by tightening the list selection criteria. Deletion isn't a remedy Katzrockso (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (2000–present)

List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (2000–present) (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 list has two huge problems: (1) almost none of the entries is supported by a source (it has a vast number of purported sources, but most of them are searches of the NobelPrize.org site that do not actually contain any mention of the subject) - and those entries that are sourced, the sourcing is often very, very weak; (2) the list never can be reliably sourced (or complete) because the Swedish Academy keeps nominations confidential for 50 years. Personally I think reason (2) means that it would be better to have no list at all for the last 50 years, but even if we have a list, reason (1) means the current version is such a bad starting-point it would be better to delete the whole thing and start from scratch, including only those people for whom a reasonably reliable third-party source can be found. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Literature, and Awards. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, after more consideration. None of this info is publicly avaliable so its all speculation. Article creator seemed to have a special interest in these Nobel Prize articles. Weak Keep or Draftify at the most. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. However, the links to the vast majority of the 746 sources cited appear to no longer work. Regardless, extreme cleanup is needed but not enough to delete in my opinion.FlammablePizza (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

They never worked in the first place, the Swedish Academy keeps nominations confidential for 50 years, so there would not be first party sources yet. 618 URLs all point to the same placeholder URL. They were not added at the access date, rather earlier this year. I get the confusion, I've never seen such a mass fake source addition effort before, but they're entirely bogus and identical other than the source title. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete or draftify I have never seen like a major effort like this before on Wikipedia, it's more or less an entire list with references that the article lead says doesn't exist publicly yet. I made the original post (Wikipedia:Teahouse#List_of_Nobel_Prize_nominees_is_full_of_fake_references) which led to this AfD and I'm kinda shocked about how much effort was put into this. There are some nominees that can be sourced, but the vast majority aren't sourceable or are weakly sourced (I assume there's some conflating with betting websites listing someone and actual people nominated in the actual real sources, the Nestor Amarilla source seems to be that?). RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment article was created by a sock puppet of User:JB Hoang Tam namely User:Mayröcker. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. In view of Elemimele's point (2), this isn't much more than speculation, at best. Athel cb (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment Other Nobel Prize-related articles also appear to have similar bogus URL citations, List of women nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature is full of them. Potentially others. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

List of nominees for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences has fake URLs too, but they have a bogus ID instead of just pointing to the same URL. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Being nominated for a Nobel Prize is not like being nominated for an Academy Award, it's not the shortlist of finalists. Instead, basically any professor of literature or linguistics or member of an academy or society can nominate someone. This is a relatively low threshold with no limit on who or how many people can be nominated, and without substantive coverage describing the significance of the nominations, I see no reason to have a list of over 600 authors. I believe the other sets of this list should also be deleted as unnecessarily large and without real meaning, simply a copy of the Nobel database of too many names to be useful or meaningful. At the least, anything dated since 1976 should be deleted as unverifiable and I don't know where the names and their years come from. Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for two reasons: recent entries fundamentally cannot be validated, and nomination is not a meaningful honor since there is little limit on who can nominate. Would be appropriate to tackle the editor who is adding bad citations as a separate issue: even without bad citations, I can't justify this list. M kuhner (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at the creator's contribs, many of them are trying to add this kind of junk to other more narrowly focused lists. There are many inappropriate page moves to prop this up as well. A fair amount of cleanup is needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. See also List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950–1999) with the same problems. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The Nobel committees have made it clear that this information won't be verifiable until 50 years after the award is given, so there is no point in keeping this article. I don't know what would lead an editor to add over 600 invalid citations to this article, but they did so; most of the persons listed are cited only to https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show_people.php?id= which does not even generate a proper search result (due to the lack of a number at the end of the URL), instead resulting in a page that says "No such person". And even if you try searching for the nominations of a person who actually has won the Nobel Prize, you will get no result unless the person was first nominated more than 50 years ago. And that's not even getting into the issue of whether we should have an article like this at all even if we could verify the information, per Reywas92. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The user who added most of the fake references has been blocked as a sock. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @RoseCherry64 And, specifically, a sock of JB Hoang Tam / Mayröcker. As this is trending towards an uncontroversial delete, I've therefore tagged it for speedy deletion under the WP:G5 criteria, to hopefully save editor time. However, if either you or @Elemimele want to make sure this article is deleted at AFD so it can be speedy deleted under WP:G4 if it's ever recreated, feel free to revert my tag. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: I reverted it, there's other articles touched by the same sock that likely need to be deleted or heavily pruned of fake citations. Just speedy deletion of this article would leave other ones, though I see that there are some redlinks here now. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @RoseCherry64 Yeah, sure, no worries! I'm not sure this AFD is actually going to clean those articles up, but I understand if you'd like an admin to assess this discussion and give you something very solid to point to in future. And yes, the recent application of G5 has hopefully taken out some of the work; JB Hoang Tam's main two acccounts are JB Hoang Tam and JB Hoang Tam 2, and I've been meaning to start working on their old articles for a while now, but, well, CCI has a very large backlog. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  To be honest, as a regular editor rather than an admin, I care about content, not how the content happened; I'd rather see this list deleted for being a bad list than for being created by a sock. We probably need a separate discussion about List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950–1999) because part of that time-frame is outside the Swedish Academy's embargo. Reywas92 made the point that maybe the whole concept isn't notable, in which case all the lists should go; otherwise, they need trimming to sourceable material. Elemimele (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Elemimele And as a fellow regular editor, I'd rather spend my life (and other editor's lives) on that 1950-1999 list than a very expensive AfD where we know the editor was evading a ban, we know the editor was impersonating another editor, we know the editor makes bad edits, and we know the editor was making at least some of their edits with ChatGPT. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 16:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  GreenLipstickLesbian, sorry, no offence intended. I certainly don't want to waste anyone's time. Were I an admin I'd definitely consider the socking editor a net negative to Wikipedia, and I'm glad action was taken. I certainly didn't want to slow things down by making this AfD - sorry if it was inappropriate. I'm obviously as involved as I can be, but since no one has suggested keeping this list, maybe the middle way is someone uninvolved to speedily-close this AfD as a delete? Elemimele (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Right Before the 30 Years Curve

Right Before the 30 Years Curve (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)

LLM-generated article which fails NBOOK (as evidenced by the lack of things the LLM has to say about the book). Fermiboson (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and South Africa. Fermiboson (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nominator, I PROD'ed this earlier for refs failing verification and unreliable sources - fails WP:NBOOK Josey Wales ^Parley 09:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Euphomedia (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep No evidence whatsoever that article has been written by LLM (it seems to me a very normal stub); there are external journalistic sources so it seems to meet WP:GNG somehow. --cyclopia^speak! 12:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep.

Which elements failed verification in the nomination diff? User:Euphomedia has been making edits to clean up some of the issues, and I corrected a typo. The newspapers seem reliable, as they have editors, but I can't verify the podcast. SenshiSun (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank podcast is an external or extension link of the Radio interview for a book review that the author had with a prominent radio station in South Africa Ikwekwezi Fm. It is part of the SABC News. Euphomedia (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I couldn't see that right away. All three sources look valid now.

Out of curiosity, did you notice any verification errors when you were doing your edits? SenshiSun (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Are we seriously believing that v1 is not LLM generated? NBOOK requires substantial reviews. The reviews are not substantial. Fermiboson (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  That version is quite obviously LLM generated, as it is full of LLM formatting and weird text. LLM articles have been saved in the past with significant rewrites. When I checked the version available to me at the time, the only thing that failed verification was a typo. I will double-check the reviews for how substantial they are.

  Personally, I would not be interested in taking advice about making the most of my 20s from someone who's only 23, but that doesn't factor into my editorial decision. SenshiSun (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  The first two articles are detailed, as they discuss the book, its author, and its target market. Neither offer any criticism or questions. I can't check the third one right now because it's a podcast. I will try to listen to it later. I will see if this has any public press releases with similar content to the articles. SenshiSun (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Issues present on v1 (and there were many) aren't what this discussion is for, the important thing here is the current revision. All LLM issues seem to have been suitably solved by the re-writes done by others and everything passes verification Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, the reviews which are on the article show that it (albeit narrowly) meets WP:NBOOK. The reviews go into enough depth. The article seems to have started out as LLM-generated, but the current revision is perfectly fine. It is a bare-bones stub with every detail cited to a source. It has been re-written enough that deletion as a WP:LLM violation would be counter-productive. The ways we deal with LLM-generated content is either removal or a re-write, and the re-write has done enough to address any issues LLMs may have caused. Issues present on v1 aren't relevant since this discussion is about whether to keep the current revision. Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand that Euphomedia is a newbie, but everyone should know that we are not Grokpedia. Even as of now, this is close to WP:TNT. Ping me if there are further edits. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thursday Next

Thursday Next (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)

Crufty rundown of a fictional character which is 90% unsourced, with the remainder sourced to the author's own website. No reason that this can't fit in a few sentences at Jasper Fforde. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Jasper Fforde for excessive primary sources and no obvious indication of meeting the notability guidelines for fictional characters. Article is almost entirely WP:FANCRUFT and not cited to reliable sources. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I've noticed a lot of older articles for long-running book series (often children's and/or detective books, compare Jane Turpin) have a character article that acts as something resembling a series article. This article could potentially be reworked into something like Thursday Next (book series), but I'd hesitate to call that a keep !vote as there probably isn't more than a sentence or two of verifiable, non-fancrufty text in this entire article - basically just the lead, really. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham)

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham) (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq) § Merge the Ibn Hisham page here

 – FaviFake (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge the Ibn Hisham page to Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq)

There is a page Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham). Ibn Hishams work is a derivation of Ibn Ishaqs and its how Ibn Ishaqs work is known to us, so these should not be a separate page, even though there were other derivations of Ibn Ishaqs sira Pogenplain (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the fact that one is an edited version of the other does not mean we should have a single article. The two existing articles look fine to me and the relationship between them is very clear. Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)