Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest novels (2nd nomination)

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. Too many of the "keep" !votes are not policy based ("it's interesting", "I like it", etc. On the other hand, the nom's case that this does not meet WP:NLIST and has issues with WP:NOR is rather convincing and not adequately rebutted. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest novels

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've been attempting to clean this up for a bit, but after some further thinking, I think it would be better to delete it for a multitude of reasons. (And if not deleted, I think there are some grounds for setting better criteria on the article). Here's why:

1. This article presents a bit of a conundrum. How does WP:VERIFY, WP:NOOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CALC apply here? Obviously, for the title of the "longest in the world", that's a fairly exceptional claim. However, if we go by verifiable word count, we find many minor novels that no source supports being called the longest. Things like a A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight which several sources say has over three million words would be the longest. This differs from basically every reliable source that say À la recherche du temps perdu (the Guinness record holder) is the longest. Would it be right for a Wikipedian to go against these sources when there are verifiably higher word or character counts? Does WP:CALC apply here (where 3 million is higher than 2 million), even when it goes against sources? How can we compare word count methodologies?

2. There is also the issue of word counts themselves. Some have been "estimated by Wikipedians" (e.g., by using 250 words per page), but they are not noted in any reliable source. Firstly, I think it is a bit weird to have the criteria include any book over 500,000 words. (There are quite a lot of books (many, upon many, not listed here) that exceed that limit. I think the top fifty or so would be a better indicator, but I digress.) But aside from that, many books (especially some less-notable ones like Joseph and His Brothers) don't have any verifiable word count. So if the word count is not verifiable, should we include it? Sure, it would be easy to assume a 5,000 page book meets that word count, but it would not be verifiable.

3. The biggest reason is that it does not meet WP:NLIST. Yes, there are many webpages that have a top ten list, but these often mirror the Wikipedia article. I cannot find any actual scholarly or popular reliable source that actually delves into a listing of large books. Certainly, the concept of "longest novel in the world" is notable (perhaps explaining what candidates there are per reliable sources), and I am not opposed to that article. But that isn't a list of simply "large books".

Sorry for the long post (possibly the longest in a while), but I felt it would be good to explain why I would delete such a seemingly useful and decently-popular article based on policy. (There's also another issue on the languages to use; English translation versus original language versus largest versus non-Latin scripts, etc. but that may be an editing decision.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do feel regret saying this as it has clearly been a lot of work creating the page, however in my view it is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. First and probably most importantly is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because there are no sources that show a methodology to determine book length, the editors on the page have made one up. Secondly, it's essentially indiscriminate and contradictory. On the talkpage books are dismissed due to self-publishing and yet one of the largest books listed is from a web-published serial. Finally, I believe it is unfortunate because it is highly likely that the content will be copied in a list in a published source, which will then become circular references for the WP page. We don't need to do that or assist listicles. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it was I that added Worm, since it is a fairly notable publication that has been the topic of scholarly sources (not just some random schmuck's Super Smash Bros. fanfiction). There was a small discussion on the talk about adding it, but a couple people objected since "no source called it a novel". I added a couple sources stating that yes, it was considered a novel. But aside from that, you are right. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list would be acceptable if it were a list of books identified as longest novels by reliable sources (e.g. longest English novel(s), longest Chinese novel(s), longest graphic novel(s)), but instead it seems to be awash with original research and a ranking mechanism invented by Wikipedia editors. pburka (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Plenty of lists on wikipedia. Why not keep this too? BlackAmerican (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an actual reason to keep besides a rationale explicitly listed at WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID? Why? I Ask (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to justify a differing opinion from a wiki essay which could as stated in the essay be a minority opinion? BlackAmerican (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you absolutely do need to justify that terrible rationale. Just because an essay includes it does not mean it isn't a fallacy nonetheless. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of Arguments to Avoid is not a wikipedia policy. It is an essay. I believe this list is good enough to have an article based upon its conent and organization. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the content and organization is fine, then that's different from voting to keep because "Wikipedia has other lists". (Although, you still need to justify that.) However, even if that essay didn't exist, your delete rationale would still be fallacious (several types, including the fallacy of relative privation) and unacceptable for an actual debate. But, I digress. Still, show me a source (something that's required by policy) that shows books above 500,000 words have been discussed as a set? (WP:NLIST is a guideline, after all, and per policy, editors should attempt to follow guidelines). Why? I Ask (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article includes plenty of relevant sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is one that meets WP:NLIST? Aside from Guinness, where is the one that says "largest book". I added a good portion of those sources, and I'm saying it doesn't qualify for an article. The sources are literally just there for word count, but we really can't compare sources against each other that may use different methodologies. That's likely WP:SYNTH. And this argument is another one explicitly listed at WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). Why? I Ask (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per through explanation by nominator. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets notability requirements and gets plenty of views so it has a readership. Article does need to be reworked, but there is salvagable content, tnt is not needed. // Timothy :: talk 11:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to which sources prove notability as a list is met? If you're going to disagree with me, you must provide sources that back up your reason to. You can't just assert something contrary and not prove it. And also, this is another explicitly poor reason per WP:POPULARPAGE. The number of readers is not a reason to keep a page. Also, how would you fix the core issues of the page? Why? I Ask (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No objection to the move suggestion below.
// Timothy :: talk 07:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you are someone that is going to vote (either keep or delete), please read WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID before voting so we can actually have a discussion. These keep votes are so poorly formed, it's ridiculous. I shouldn't have to make this comment nor have I ever had to cite this essay more than once in a discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the list is useless without any kind of qualifier. English novels? By page count? What if a large typeface is used? Too many variables and no clear sources with methodology on how to measure novel length. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with all of the points you've made, deleting the page isn't necessarily the answer, these are issues that can very much be fixed, maybe not easily but it's possible. Please see the essay linked on the essay you've cited (WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID) under Surmountable problems: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I would again like to point out what others have said, essays are editor created and not guidelines and guidelines aren't rules. Viatori (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide a manner to fix them. You can't just vote to keep because you think there's a way to fix it. There's also an issue with sourcing: you haven't provided any sources. Your vote is unhelpful and poorly made because it doesn't even show the possibility of fixing the article.

And in the case of your defense that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, you're right, but that doesn't apply here. The issue isn't that it's poorly written or has a lack of sources on the article. It's that no sources are even presumed to exist and the core of the entire page is largely original research. If I were to remove the original research, the page would be empty. If you want to vote keep, that's fine. I'm not against keeping this cool page if it complied with policy. But your vote hasn't proved how it could (e.g., meet WP:GNG or fix the WP:OR). You can't just say vaguely that problems can be fixed.

(Also disregarding essays and guidelines without a good reason to back it up (since they aren't "rules" per se) is literally the main argument people use when they don't have an actual consensus-based reason to keep it.) Why? I Ask (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page is an interesting topic to have! I like it and it helped pique my curiosity :) 128.54.215.57 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... At the risk of bludgeoning more than I have, that is not a reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "list of novels considered the longest" and require sources describing the novel as the longest. The general idea of a "longest novel" has been discussed much more than the set of "the longest novels", and there appears to be a lot of dispute in reliable sources over what counts as such. Said list would likely satisfy WP:NLIST and allow us to dodge points 1 and 2.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Why not just create that list and delete this one? pburka (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: The history of this article is salvageable for content and sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: I agree that that's a better idea, but I still am not able to find many sources on that. Inputing "longest" and "novel" or "most words" and "book" (among other thing) in various search databases turned up completely dry. Were you able to find many sources? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two. [1] [2] The fact that neither of these fanfictions are included on the current state list despite being the subject of reliable sources covering their status as the "longest novel" is illogical. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I somewhat agree and disagree about the nature of fanfictions. But at the same time, if we were to have a list of "novels considered the longest", I do think there should be some sort of cut-off or category for "actual" books. Sources about long fanfiction are decently plentiful. Sources about long novels aren't. Searching further, using the quoted text "longest novel in English" did pull up a small handful of results, but nearly every single source all points curiously to Clarissa. No other book (except for one mention of Suitable Boy) was seen. This basically means the entire sourcing supports three novels: Clarissa, Suitable Boy, and À la recherche du temps perdu. (Note: "longest novel in other language" did not pull up any results, so I question whether English translations or non-English books will even be able to be added). However, I still do not believe WP:NLIST is met. The sources that call these the longest only include that title in a single sentence mention, so there is no indication they have been actually discussed in-depth or as a set. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"List of works of literature considered the longest" might be broader? The Mahabharata is noted by The Globe and Mail in a headline as being the longest poem. [3] Also, it's not our job to determine what is and is not an "actual book". That is the job of the sources, which appear to disagree wildly about the nature of fanfictions vs novels vs poetry and the boundaries between each. And if "sources about long fanfiction are decently plentiful" then you're basically admitting the article satisfies WP:NLIST if we included fanfiction. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put actual in quotes because there was long-standing consensus to dis-include it, not that I necessarily fully oppose it. However, the difference between novels and poems is pretty clear. More vague is fanfiction versus novels which I can not currently find a reputable source that says whether they count as novels. The Slate article you linked differentiates the two, though, so I think most would agree that novels and fanfiction are two seperate entities. (But outside of further research, I am not going to make a hard stance). I would still split fanfiction (which is defined as amateur writing based on an existing work of fiction) from original (including derivative) works published by professional authors if not purely based on readership and the current state of sourcing. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This discussion is full of ways to improve the article. As long as those are possible (limit to what reliable sources say, stop estimating word counts based on page count, require independent sourcing, etc.), we're in WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP territory. Not seeing a good case to WP:TNT what's there currently. This is not an endorsement of the current version of the article, but of the subject of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of novels considered the longest per User:Chess. In the absence of a definitive criteria for weighing competing claims, it is the claims themselves that are notable. BD2412 T 20:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I am definitely not opposed to this idea, but I worry that non-English books (especially in regards to Asian literature) will be somewhat overlook per the systemic bias in many literature sources. Is this a decent worry to have? Or should we just blanket say that there needs to be multiple sources that call a work the longest? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's how all of these kinds of lists ought to be managed in my opinion, as it's the only way to avoid OR. Simply follow the sources (even if they're contradictory!) and don't develop our own rankings. pburka (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "List of novels considered the longest" or a similar title per Chess. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move - I am not going to say anything that people above haven't already said. But I created an account today just to be able to voice my opinion on this article. That being said, sorry if there are any errors or of this isn't the proper way to vote or reply.

I have been a frequent visitor of this article for about a year now, as I have gotten obsessed with trying to read the "Top 50 Novels Written in English" for my own personal challenge. The concern for having Non-English books being overlooked is a fair and understandable issue. Clearly proving my point by stating my personal challenge. I will say though, that the ability to sort and organize all of the books on this list (word count, language, volumes) has been great as well as being a nice conversation piece when someone asks me "What other books are on that list?" Not to mention that I have started to look into the books in other languages to see if there are English translation, in case I start the down the path of just trying to read the longest books ever. I have had this page open on my phone for month because I reference it often.

I would just hate to see the information that is on this list get tossed in the bin, with it moved to another article it can at least be offered up to potential new contributors and/or people like me, who have weird challenges that they put themselves through. Bassmanvoh (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly chosen the proper way to contribute to the discussion. That said, your argument is essentially a version of WP:USEFUL and fails to address the nominator's concern that the topic isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move - This topic is definitely interesting and a sort of guide for us bookworms who love reading huge but well-plotted novels. Although everyone's taste in genre is definitely very different from each other, it is a very interesting list for bookworms. This article definitely doesn't deserve deletion in my opinion. I have added some books myself in the list although people have removed 2 or 3 of them. The article definitely needs a few modifications like separating the novels and novel cycles. Language should not matter if it meets the criteria of exceeding 500000 words. I am very glad to see that the article has removed the column on the number of pages as page count is definitely very unreliable. As a lazy editor of this article, I suggest that this article must be kept and some modifications must definitely be made by better editors than my lazy self, especially the separation of the true long novels from the novel cycles. Another point is that we must keep in mind that the authors and publishers have different views and end up dividing the long novels for various differences in opinions and reasonings. My opinion is that if the author considers any multi-volume work to be a single work, for example, The Neapolitan novels, then those novels should be included in the list out of respect for the authors' true wishes. I hope you all find my suggestions useful. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.237.36.248 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting topic, clearly with a lot of noteworthy titles involved.WP:HASPOT.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being interesting is not a grounds to keep per WP:INTERESTING. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to link me to a list of positive arguments that you feel I'm allowed to make (I feel I should be able to make any) for why an article should stay, I can take a look at then, if that answer is not suitable.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please! Your input is valued. But please remember to make sure your main points explain why this article meets specific criteria, guidelines or policies! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can link me to a list of approved arguments, I can take a look.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates are good starters! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keep"/"move" opinions above do not address the WP:NOR and WP:NLIST issues this article has, as explained by the nominator. WP:NOR is a core policy that local consensus cannot override. "It's useful" and "I like it" are not valid reasons to keep. Sandstein 08:00, 11 March 2023 (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.