Why aren't books covered on this site? In particular...

I can't imagine

There's a HUGE, HUGE difference between a novel by a famous writer that was never finished, such as F Scott Fitzgerald's The Love of the Last Tycoon, or the early drafts of Ernest Hemingway's works which were stolen, or Homer's first epic poem which is lost to time, and "passion projects" by some nobody on the internet. To even compare them is an insult. Just because we open up the domain of books/text to write articles for does not mean that suddenly every text by every human who ever lived must get an article. Lost video and audio are currently covered by this wiki, yet every garage band's first "lost" recordings are not written up as articles on here--and for good reason. With all due respect, Im not sure how this is a valid argument to not include texts on the wiki. I enjoy, and see the merit in saving, some cartoon shorts like Clock Man as much as anyone. But the lost works of Shakespeare (Cardenio) and the Bible (Book of the Battles of Yahweh being just one example) are far more deserving to be included on here. There are works from some of the greatest minds in history and/or associated with cultural traditions which formed the basis of storytelling itself (the Bible and Homer are the bedrock of Western literary tradition). It's completely asinine to dismiss them based on some vague hypothetical where irrelevant articles might be created as well.

In short, there aren't many articles on books simply because not many people have written articles on books. There's a specific section for them though, there's nothing stopping people from writing such articles (quite the contrary), so feel free to help contribute!

At one point I was actually planning on writing an article on The Telegony (the lost sequel to The Iliad and The Odyssey), but I ended up having to put it on the backburner for now, since it would be such a big undertaking. In general that's why articles on "recent" media are more abundant, it takes a lot less research to make sure they're complete and accurate.

Also, you keep alluding to articles on obscure dubs... is that just because you've seen others doing it in the past? Because we've already gone ahead and deleted almost everything that wasn't the original audio or an English dub, so there's not really anything left to complain about in that regard (unlike a certain other wiki which has a specific section for dubs, which is filled with literal hundreds of articles)

I have the same feeling. thepiratebays

I have a lot of books, mainly from my childhood. I could look and see if you are looking for any specific book(s)?