Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Civil War bibliography

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 speedy keep. Not an article - take it to WP:RfD (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 22:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War bibliography

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Split - Article is over 100 kB and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actual Civil War bibliography is vast-- running over 60,000 published books with more appearing every month. This is a highly selective bibliography that includes about 1700 titles or 3% of the total. It is very well organized into over 50 sub-categories. It is based on the standard guides like Woodworth (1996) which runs over 750 pages of bibliography, as well as the book reviews in issues of Civil War History, Journal of American History, Journal of Southern History and the bibliographies in recent books. Razr Nation has given no reason why he thinks the selection is "indiscriminate". The way people study the Civil War is matches to the organization of the article. If someone wants an overview they are given in section one and the local library is likely to have several of them for the reader to use. A specialized topic like "Maps, photographs, environment" has nine selected titles. There are lots of people interested in battles and campaigns and they are well served. Someone interested in the battle of Shiloh, for example, will find nine books (selected from the 25 given at the Battle of Shiloh article. Se we have a convenient well-selected guide that will be of use to readers and to local librarians helping patrons find useful books. Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highly useful selected bibliography. A multitude of pages should be able to create a See Also link to this to directed interested readers towards the scholarly literature in topics of interest to them. Each and every one of our "Further Reading" sections is necessarily a subjective selection of a sampling of the material on a topic; this is no reason to delete here. The very vastness of the literature related to the subject makes this a valid stand-alone topic, rather than cluttering dozens of articles with dozens of titles... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of books is what Wikipedia is not for. Statυs (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not "indiscriminate" what nonsense given the immense effort editors put in it! It is a selected, discriminate categorized bibliography regarding an important event. Wikipedia has thousands of these and it's one of the great strengths. If you want to see what an indiscriminate list looks like, look at the 48,000 titles at amazon.com: Amazon Civil War list Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies are a recognized form of list in Wikipedia. There is even a Wikiproject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fits our goals such as in the Special:Cite claim that Wikipedia articles should be used as a "starting point for further research". An argument against a bibliographic list could be made, however no such argument has yet been presented (esp. w/Rjensen's counter). Wikipedia has featured "list[s] of books"; the contradiction needs elaboration. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clarify the inclusion criteria. This list easily passes the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, but does not clearly specify the criteria for inclusion in the list. Without such criteria, it is original research. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I am mistaken we don't have a clear criteria for inclusion or deletion of bibliographies. Perhaps an RfC should be started on the applications of notability guidelines, sources, the place of original research, and criteria for inclusion within bibliographies. But this isn't the place for such a broad discussion. Keep for now, perhaps revisit far down the road. Them From Space 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We seem to have gradually decided over the past year that bibliographies of this sort are appropriate content. Personally, I think we might want to consider a different way of handling them than as mainspace articles--possibly the Citizendium practice of having them as subpages in mainspace. But for now there seems to be consensus for handling them in this fashion, and it is certainly better that we have them somewhere rather than not have them at all. In any case, continuing consensus at AfD is every bit as much a community decision as an rfc. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are clear criteria. Among the reasons for deletion is that the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guide. Bibliographies fall under the criteria for stand-alone lists. Sources need to discuss the list as a list, and such sources are already provided in this bibliography. The main page of WikiProject Bibliographies has a lot of discussion of policies related to bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep I sometimes wonder about these AfDs, I really do. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 24 November 2012 (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.