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 a speedy keep following the withdrawal of the nomination. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of encyclopedias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We already have List of encyclopedias, which is encyclopedic. — ṞṈ™ 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't see how it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE in any way. It appears to have a similar aim to List of encyclopedias. Merging the two would seem the obvious way to go. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only basis for deletion provided above seems to relate specifically to the admittedly over-exuberant language in the lede section, and it should be noted that I had expressed those concerns in the talk page already. I acknowledge that there is a duplication question regarding the two groups of articles, but, honestly, to my eyes the title with the work "Bibliography" is a bit clearer and possibly better in line with WP:NAME than the more generic title "List" articles. Personally, I think it more reasonable to merge the content from the existing "List" articles into the bibliography articles, which, again, seem to me to have a more appropriate name. I have only gone through about 1/4 of the 1986 Sheehy book I am currently using to cite my own additions to the pages, which also, obviously, only covers books printed in 1986 or early, but I have started a similar list specifically for religion at User:John Carter/Religion reference and I can reasonably think most of those published after 1986 are discussed in some of the same journals as those Religion books are. And, yes, I have a lot of review articles in my e-mail for books of all sorts which I haven't yet added to any list. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A very honest question: Are bibliographies like this considered encyclopedic content? I mean, it is okay yo have this type of information collected into an article (or lists) here on Wikipedia? — ṞṈ™ 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In attempting to answer the above question, which pretty much by definition is somewhat OR on my part, I would have to say "almost certainly yes." Do they meet basic WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? Yes. There are huge sections of the Sheehy book I am using to source my additions devoted exclusively to bibliographies of topics, and in the book I even find pages 3 and 4 of the book starting an exclusively generic "bibliography of bibliography" section, with 15 generic entries, followed by eight pages of lists of national and regional bibliographies. I even saw a few entries exclusively on "bibliography of encyclopedias", I think enough to establish particular notability. One of these is an either academic or professional journal devoted to the topic. Given the choice of "lists" and "bibliographies", I would prefer the "bibliography" format because it can also contain short entries on those works which don't have enough "reviews" for separate articles as well. "Enhanced lists" or whatever we call them could do that as well, but, given the word "bibliography" exists to specifically cover this sort of topic, I do think it the more relevant and effective title. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, in the almost-five-years I've been here, I never came across this type of articles, that's the main reason why I proposed this, as well as other bibliographies, for deletion. I found them [in my personal opinion] to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but if the topic as a whole has been discussed by several sources, then it is obviously notable. John, I'd ask you to close this nomination if you wish; I made a bad judgment call, I guess. Thanks for taking a bit of your time and explaining this to me :) [Damn, we learn new things every day]. — ṞṈ™ 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - straight deletion does seem out of the question here, as this list is well-defined (if ambitious), well structured and properly cited. John Carter makes sensible points about the name, but in general WP contains "Lists" of any number of kinds, and it is I suppose less easy to locate if "List of xyz books" is an exception by being a "Bibliography of xyz". However there's obviously no problem with the name at least as a redirect. On the merge/keep issue I am less certain. It would clearly be silly to discard the detailed bibliographic information here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are important differences between the lists of encyclopedias and the bibliography lists. The lists of encyclopedias tend to list works about which separate Wikipedia articles have been written while the bibliography and its offshoots sets out to be a comprehensive list which can serve as a reference guide to anyone researching a given topic. As an increasing number of historical and modern works become available digitally, the bibliographies of encyclopedias become increasingly relevant to those wishing to enhance their knowledge of the world. Furthermore, with ISBN references, many of the works can be obtained through physical library networks. I hope these lists will continue to develop so that in the not too distant future, Wikipedia will serve as a universal on-line reference point to those seeking encyclopedic knowledge of any of the topics which have been included in encyclopedias and dictionaries over the years, whether in English or in other languages. It is an extremely ambitious project and goes far beyond the more restrictive lists of encyclopedias developed until now. --Ipigott (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ipigott's comments. "List of ___" articles basically should include only items that (1) have Wikipedia articles, or (2) can be expected to get them. This page has a completely different purpose of listing basically any and every encyclopedia — while the pages linked at List of encyclopedias provide links to articles about those encyclopedias, this list provides links to the encyclopedias themselves and to bibliographic information (e.g. ISBNs) about them. Basic lists are one situation in which "it's useful" really is a good argument; this list brings together related encyclopedia topics and is useful for navigating that subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominator said he wants to withdraw the AfD. See the comment made above by Ṉ™ @ 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 19 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.