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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada[edit]

List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have suggested to merge this article into Sierra Nevada (United States), but there where 2 objections. Although I disagree with the reasons, I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this to the main article.
I suggest to delete this article (or merge it, depending on the result of this AFD) because:
1.In my opinion, There is no real encyclopidic content here.
2. There is no "Further Reading" section in the main article, and I think this is a mistake.
P.S Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, because this is the first AFD I'm opening. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice list, but not encyclopaedic. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT. There are plenty of places to host this online. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a reasonably comprehensive bibliography of references for material about the Sierra Nevada. The page was developed by many editors, not representing any particular company. This is not a list of web pages, but a list of books that complement several articles about the Sierra Nevada. The list article is linked to from those articles. Deleting this list would harm readers who want to find out more about the natural history of the Sierra Nevada.

Further, this afd seems to be in response to negative feedback about a proposed merge. Appealing to afd to generate a different opinion from the Talk Page is not helpful editing. We should continue to discuss at the Talk page. hike395 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list satisfies Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists since its focus is specific and useful to a broad range of potential readers. The #5 argument of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations)) comes closest to refuting the list basis. But on close reading, #5 gives a fine intersection of cross-cultural categories for its reasoning, which is not the case for List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. (The article ought to be renamed List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada (United States)). —EncMstr (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an appropriate list. It meets the standards of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, and doesn't intrude on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Annotated bibilographies are very encyclopedic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I would like to note for the record that it in its current form it is not really annotated.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As one who has enjoyed the Sierra Nevada in California, this list contains very handy references not only to articles, but to memorable and beautiful places which are also notable. If lists of entertainment topics can remain in the encyclopedia without calls for their deletion, then so too can the List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Of use to more than just the Sierra Nevada article. Thus merging would do more harm than good. --mav (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Annotated bibliographies are a good supplement for a encyclopedia that purports to be based on external sources, and for WP I'd rather have them in separate articles instead of making the main articles longer and longer. I note that printed EB has biblios for many of its major articles. Stan (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (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.