Talk:Jay E. Adams

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive & malformed bibliography
The bibliography section is far larger than the main body of the article, and as such is clearly excessive and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is also in alphabetical order, rather than chronological, as MOS:WORKS requires. I am therefore moving the bulk of it here to talk. If anybody believes that any (small subset) of these works is particularly prominent or representative, please feel free to reinclude in chronological order. Please also include year of publication and publisher. I have also added a WorldCat link to the ELs for anybody interested in Adams' complete works. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)



[ End of excessive & malformed bibliography. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ]

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Jay E. Adams bibliography be merged here, most probably as a bare redirect, for the following reasons:
 * 1) Lack of notability (listing of Adams works in a couple of bibliographies does not amount to "significant coverage" or "discuss[ion] as a group or set").
 * 2) WP:MERGEs #2 (Overlap) & #4 (Context).

I would further note that between this biography, the bibliography and Nouthetic counseling, there is probably only enough third-party coverage to sustain a single article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - bibliography meets WP:NOTESAL requirements and nom's real intent to remove this content completely from WP is evident in the above comments. There are 100s of complete bibliographies in WP of notable authors.  The number of entries in the bibliography is irrelevant to whether or not it is discriminate or not. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Bald assertion that "bibliography meets WP:NOTESAL requirements" amounts to WP:ITSNOTABLE. (ii) As I have already explicitly drawn Mike's attention to the fact that redirection is explicitly countenanced as a remedy for lack of notability, his accusations of "real intent" amount to nothing more than a blatant violation of WP:AGF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you belive this list is not notable, take it to AfD, don't try and rationalize a merge that effectively deletes it without debate. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your demand that I "take it to AfD" is thus WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. On closer examination, your demand is also in explicit violation of WP:BEFORE C4: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I am not demanding anything. I contend the list is notable IAW WP:NOTESAL and have added sources that support that contention.  You disagree. The merge in the manner you are suggesting, effectively deletes the content in this list.  I oppose that. Because we disagree on the Notability question, the only reasonable resolution is AfD where others can judge the list's notability. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would further point out that even if "discuss[ion of Adams' works] as a group or set" existed, it would almost certainly amount to discussion of Nouthetic counseling, rendering the bibliography even furtherly overlapping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge The person is notable exclusively because of some of his writing so there is obviously overlap. At the same time, it doesn't look like his writing as a corpus has been covered "as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per NOTESAL. That leads me to believe that the more significant (if not notable) of his works should be discussed in the main article and the "bibliography" redirected there. This also seems to fail Manual_of_Style_(stand-alone_lists) since bullets 1 and 2 obviosuly do not apply and fails three because it is not "reasonably short (less than 32K)" (it is only less than 32k because it contains less than full bibligraphic info about each entry and so little wikilinking), is not "useful (e.g., for navigation)", and is not "interesting to readers", let alone all three. It really does seem not useful. Adam's can put a list of his works on his website, and keep it more updated. Why do that at WP? Further, "if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Per his bio, he has written more than 100 books, and who knows how many other shorter works. As for Hran's "real intent", it seems to be exactly what is proposed. I would make the same argument at AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If the bibliography does go to AfD, please note it here so those of us who have given up watching the bibliography and any others watching this article will know it. And an observation: I don't mean to cast stones, but it seems odd to me to spend so much effort shoring up the bibliography when the main article is nearly worthless. Novaseminary (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)