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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories

[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article or delete American Civil War bibliography - This article is split from American Civil War bibliography due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of American Civil War bibliography prior to doing so. If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came. BTW, can this AfD be combined with Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories‎?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:Ignore all rules. The purpose of the article is to help people find books on a topic they are interested in, in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. It also probably violates "List" and "Not a directory." However it is on a serious topic and will be useful to people looking for this information. So keep. It does some good and no harm. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. We have Google books, or any other online source which does this. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hundreds, or thousands, of list-type articles on much less worthwhile topics. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to call restrictive essays here (othercrap, otherstuff, etc). A better answer may be: "I haven't found those lists yet to bring them at AFD", although that may come a bit rude. Oh and by the way, I have nominated American Civil War bibliography for deletion either. You might already know, of course. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a personal problem with it. You are following policy. I do think you would do better to nominate some of the lists on minor characters in video games or unreleased songs by pop stars. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am just following policy, even when it hurts. And well, on a funny note, the "unreleased songs" are being deleted by now :P — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that there is some good news. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What? No. WP:NOTCATALOG Statυs (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- QUESTION - Why isn't American Civil War bibliography being recommended for deletion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The notability criteria for stand-alone lists require that there be a source for this list as a whole. Not one that includes all of the entries, but one that establishes it as a subject worth making a list for. There should also be clear selection criteria, or else it is original research. I am on the fence about deleting this article because I think it might be possible to satisfy these criteria - but someone should demonstrate that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the nominator did not explain why this is "indiscriminate". The list is a subsection of the titles in Woodworth, Steven E.; ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Greenwood Press, 1996. and Civil War Books; a critical bibliography (2 vol I) by Allan Nevins, Robertson, James I., and Bell Wiley, ( United States. Civil War Centennial Commission) 1970 , which list thousands of titles. That means it meets the criterion: “A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should really have been submitted (if at all) along with its sister articles. They should all be kept for the same reason that I gave at the Confederate one:

Keep - this well-structured list has precise inclusion criteria, to which it conforms absolutely. It's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". It covers a notable topic, with indeed a large literature to guarantee that notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arcane, perhaps, but let's not overthink this. Bibliographies are part of Wikipedia and they should be as a fundamental part of its educational mission — a starting place for research. This one is substantial and not comfortably mergable, and Wikipedia is better off with this than without it. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering bibliographies are accepted by a wide consensus, the rationale is nonsense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP per WP:SNOW I find these Civil War nominations very interesting. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm now convinced that the sources establish notability (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories). RockMagnetist (talk) 05:26, 27 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.