Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annotated bibliography of fly fishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Annotated bibliography of fly fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to be a random list of books about fly fishing. Arbitary list, appears to serve little purpose. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has quality. DeadmanUndertaker 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what? J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not an online card catalogue. Arkyan 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- move somewhere. This is a great article for ... somewhere else. Wikibooks, maybe? -- phoebe / (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree with Phoebe -- I have no idea where to move it, but it is a worthwhile article for its subject. It just doesn' belong on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecoleetage: Are you of the opinion that NO Bibliographies should be included as articles in WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This deletion proposal has provided no rationale that I can see other than someones opinion that the bibliography is arbitrary and random--the meaning of which I don't quite understand. What about it is random and arbitrary? The original deletion proposal (Jan 2008) and the rationale to keep this article is located at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annotated_Bibliography_of_Fly_Fishing. My input at that time to keep is repeated below. Since that deletion proposal the article has been expanded with significant citing of sources. In addition, the number of bibliographies in the Category:Bibliographies by subject has increased to 62. If bibliographies are not to be included in WP, then guidelines to that effect should be developed.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: On the surface I find Bibliographies in Wikipedia very useful. There are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject. I suspect there are more that are not categorized. All these bibliographies have one thing in common—they are a list of well cited references related to a particular subject. With the WP emphasis on citing sources, these bibliographies are important. Although their formats differ, their content is essentially the same. If this particular article is Non-Wikipedic then they all are which I believe is not the case. I would be hard pressed to provide a rationale to delete: Bibliography of the Western Apache (or any other bibliography) on grounds other than Bibliographies are not encyclopedic—a premise that I disagree with. The other rationale for Keeping this and other bibliographies is that most of them have been embraced and referenced in their respective Project pages. Members of a project find bibliographies very useful in working on new and existing articles as well as expanding their overall knowledge about the Project subject. To delete this or any other bibliography would be a disservice to knowledge on the related subject.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I am exasperated to see this article renominated yet again, and so soon after it successfully withstood a previous AfD nomination. I see no rationale whatsoever for nominating it again. The "reasons" stated for deleting the article are that it is
- a random list
- an arbitary list
- appears to serve little purpose.
- It is most certainly not a "random" or "arbitrary" list, as the most casual perusal will make apparent. It is a comprehensive and carefully selected and ordered list of the most relevant literature of fly fishing, organised both historically and by topic. Any serious student of fly fishing would find this article a mine of exquisitely organised and relevant information.
- Mike Cline said above that there are already 62 bibliographies. In fact there are 83, including subcategories. This article is, in my view, one of the finer bibliographies in Wikipedia.
- Specifically which of the reasons for deletion are being invoked here? If an appropriate reason can not be given, then this AfD is out of order, is timewasting, and should be withdrawn. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just examined the 61 other bibliographies under Category:Bibliographies by subject, and can now confidently assert that Annotated bibliography of fly fishing is the pick of the lot. The nearest contender is the also comprehensive and well organised Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography. If this nomination is to succeed, then all the other bibliographies need to go as well. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing this article. That other crap exists is irrelevant. Are we going to see every 'argument to avoid'? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just examined the 61 other bibliographies under Category:Bibliographies by subject, and can now confidently assert that Annotated bibliography of fly fishing is the pick of the lot. The nearest contender is the also comprehensive and well organised Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography. If this nomination is to succeed, then all the other bibliographies need to go as well. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Milburn, there is a difference between one and many. If you read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about using article x as an example. That is one article. I was talking about a category which contains 61 other articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. There are many articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here- it's possible that most/all of them should go, I haven't looked into it. The point of that section of the essay is that you can't hide behind the existence of other articles to justify the existence of another. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Milburn, there is a difference between one and many. If you read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about using article x as an example. That is one article. I was talking about a category which contains 61 other articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure whether to laugh or whether to cry. "Carefully selected" is the same as 'arbitrary'- you are choosing what to include through your own criteria. Are you going to pretend that you intend to add every fiction/non fiction book about fly fishing? No? Then what are your inclusion criteria? It has also been argued that the page is useful. I'll not patronise you all linking to a certain essay, but I do wonder why people continue to use the same ridiculous arguments, and it saddens me that people still accept them. If it's so useful to project members, put it in the Wikipedia space. A lot of WikiProjects maintain a list of potential references. This page is not an article- the only non-articles we should have in our article space are dab pages, redirects, and lists. Lists have some kind of inclusion criteria or end-game- this just plain doesn't. Would the people here support the existence of a 'list of books about fly fishing'? Of course not. Why is this any different? If these books are being used as references, they should be added to the respective articles' reference lists, not thrown together in this hodge-podge. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing administrator: Please note the blatant canvassing by the article creator here. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense. This is not "blatant canvassing" - it was drawing my attention to the nonsense going on here. Mike and I work together on the fishing project. Our concern is with producing and protecting good fishing articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I went to some of my Wikifriends and said 'Could you please weigh in and help me get this article deleted? There are some people who want it kept.' J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense. This is not "blatant canvassing" - it was drawing my attention to the nonsense going on here. Mike and I work together on the fishing project. Our concern is with producing and protecting good fishing articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear Milburn, once again there really is a difference between one and many. If you were to read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about canvassing multiple wikipedians. And it has a scale, starting with the entirely acceptable friendly notice to a limited number of people. You have to go a long way up that scale before the canvassing becomes unacceptable. I see on your user page that you are an admin, so it would be good to read the guidelines that guide you. Please feel free to invite as many of your Wikifriend deletionists as you want. But they probably already watch these pages. What would be useful would be some clear and sensible reasons why an article of this calibre should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, in fact, once again you miss the spirit of the advice/policy and instead focus on the letter. There's a fine line between a friendly notification (perhaps at a WikiProject page or the talk page of a user who has also contributed to the article) and running to someone and telling them to join a discussion mirroring your opinion in an attempt to add weight to your argument. Also, I am not going to contact any Wikifriends, call in any favours or try and advertise this page to rampant deletionists, as I know better than that. If you truly want a reason for this deletion, I will present it again- this is an indiscriminate list- there are many, many books about fly fishing, and Wikipedia is not a directory- attempting to create a list of them all is not an encyclopedia article. Writing about these books in their own articles, maybe even creating a centralised list of books we have articles on- that would be encyclopedic. Citing any books used as sources in the relevant articles- that would be encyclopedic. Having this slightly odd, very arbitrary list is not encyclopedic. If you want a policy, then I point you towards what Wikipedia is not and our style guidelines for lists. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear Milburn, once again there really is a difference between one and many. If you were to read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about canvassing multiple wikipedians. And it has a scale, starting with the entirely acceptable friendly notice to a limited number of people. You have to go a long way up that scale before the canvassing becomes unacceptable. I see on your user page that you are an admin, so it would be good to read the guidelines that guide you. Please feel free to invite as many of your Wikifriend deletionists as you want. But they probably already watch these pages. What would be useful would be some clear and sensible reasons why an article of this calibre should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments is the article's last AFD nomination. Nominator provides no explanation regarding what has changed since the last nomination. In the absence of such an explanation this debate is simply going over old ground. Debate (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as orginal research and per the precedents set by the near routine deletion of 'annotated bibliography' articles like this. What reliable third party source(s) says that these books are particularly notable and supports the annotations? This material is, I image, quite useful to people with an interest in the topic, but it isn't encylopedic and should be moved onto a more suitable website than this one - Wikipedia is not a web host or a blog. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick--I would challenge your statement What reliable 3rd Party Sources says these books are particularily notable The great majority of the books in this bibliography are cited and celebrated multiple times in the the the works listed under the heading--Fly fishing history, bibliographies and literature reviews. You personally maynot know who Hills, Radcliff, Goodspeed, Starkman, McDonald, Gingrich, Waterman, Schullery, and Herd are but these noted angling authors whose work on the history of fly fishing is widely known and respected. Additionally, one only needs review the extensive inventories of the angling literature collections of noted anglers and sportsman in the 19th and 20th century to know that most if not all of these titles resided in the great collections of angling literature. If the above are not reliable 3rd Party sources, what are?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should ignorance of the subject matter invalidate an editor or admin's desire to delete an article? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy - No intent to Invalidate anyone's desire. I was merely commenting on the rationale being used which I believe was incorrect.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should ignorance of the subject matter invalidate an editor or admin's desire to delete an article? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick - After doing some searching I could not find anything in WP to support your statement: per the precedents set by the near routine deletion of 'annotated bibliography' articles like this.. There is nothing in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to support the statement. Should I look somewhere else, or is this your personal opinion? Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick--I would challenge your statement What reliable 3rd Party Sources says these books are particularily notable The great majority of the books in this bibliography are cited and celebrated multiple times in the the the works listed under the heading--Fly fishing history, bibliographies and literature reviews. You personally maynot know who Hills, Radcliff, Goodspeed, Starkman, McDonald, Gingrich, Waterman, Schullery, and Herd are but these noted angling authors whose work on the history of fly fishing is widely known and respected. Additionally, one only needs review the extensive inventories of the angling literature collections of noted anglers and sportsman in the 19th and 20th century to know that most if not all of these titles resided in the great collections of angling literature. If the above are not reliable 3rd Party sources, what are?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I find one argument used in the last AfD pretty persuasive—–that this should be regarded as a summary style spinoff of the further reading section of the various articles on fly fishing. As an aside, I'm rather surprised that the one book on the subject that is widely known to non-anglers is not on the list. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation It should be noted that indeed an effort is underway to turn the Fly fishing article into a Summary article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing/Proposals --Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reminding me of the J. R. Hartley book. I actually have that in my library and was living in England when the first J. R. Hartley commercials were being shown on TV. I've added the book to the Fly fishing humor section.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If wikipedia has bibliographies, then this is the sort of bibliography it should have. This is not "an online card catalogue", it's a carefully annotated list to make it more than that. That makes it valuable (not necessarily encyclopedic).
- Wikipedia has a category for bibliographies. That's not WP:OSE, that's an indication of established consenus that bibliographic lists of good quality that extend a mere card catalogue are encyclopedic. If we delete this article, let's destroy the whole category too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles like this have been deleted at AfD before; I can find you some examples if you like. That nullifies the argument that others haven't been deleted, and yes, maybe all of them should be deleted.
You claim that it is valuable, but not encyclopedic. So, you support non-encyclopedic content in the mainspace of our encyclopedia? If it's valuable but not encyclopedic, it should be moved to the Wikipedia space, or another project. If there's a WikiBook about fishing, I'm sure they would appreciate it. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles like this have been deleted at AfD before; I can find you some examples if you like. That nullifies the argument that others haven't been deleted, and yes, maybe all of them should be deleted.
- I'm sorry that your counter-argument contains two obvious logical fallacies. WP:AGF requires me to assume that this wasn't sophistry on your part, so perhaps I have merely used too subtle an expression of my point.
- Firstly the undoubted fact that articles from that category have been deleted is irrelevant here. No-one is claiming that poor bibliographic lists aren't worthy of deletion. Your own recommendation to preserve this article elsewhere is itself a confirmation of the general agreement that it is a good article of its type. The point is that the category exists, and the consensus is that such a category should exist (i.e. not WP:OSE).
- Secondly I did not express that, "it is valuable, but not encyclopedic." I merely used one point to demonstrate its value, another to demonstrate its acceptance as being encyclopedic. Although each point may only demonstrate one attribute at a time, these are not exclusive (that's what "not necessarily" means here). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your first point- I'm not sure why you believe the existence of a category suggests that there is a consensus to have articles of that type. I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted. I'm making the point that, just as arguing 'similar articles have been deleted' is irrelevant, arguing 'similar articles exist' is meaningless. Anyway, anyone can make a category, just as anyone can make an article. Regarding your second point- I apologise, I misread your original comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted." The point is that this category, has not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I phrased it wrong. I meant categories of albums by a band whose article was deleted per A7. I'm just saying that a category existing doesn't mean that all, or even any, of the articles in it should be kept. I realise it's not the same, I'm just trying to point out that it isn't that clear cut. Apologies, I was a little confrontational before. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 refers to subject importance, not bibliography. If your point here was to be relevant, you'd have to assert that fly fishing itself was not important. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I am making is simpler than that- the existence of a category does not mean that there is any consensus that articles within it should exist, as demonstrated by my example. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 refers to subject importance, not bibliography. If your point here was to be relevant, you'd have to assert that fly fishing itself was not important. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I phrased it wrong. I meant categories of albums by a band whose article was deleted per A7. I'm just saying that a category existing doesn't mean that all, or even any, of the articles in it should be kept. I realise it's not the same, I'm just trying to point out that it isn't that clear cut. Apologies, I was a little confrontational before. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted." The point is that this category, has not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your first point- I'm not sure why you believe the existence of a category suggests that there is a consensus to have articles of that type. I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted. I'm making the point that, just as arguing 'similar articles have been deleted' is irrelevant, arguing 'similar articles exist' is meaningless. Anyway, anyone can make a category, just as anyone can make an article. Regarding your second point- I apologise, I misread your original comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly I did not express that, "it is valuable, but not encyclopedic." I merely used one point to demonstrate its value, another to demonstrate its acceptance as being encyclopedic. Although each point may only demonstrate one attribute at a time, these are not exclusive (that's what "not necessarily" means here). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 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.