Talk:Osprey Essential Histories

Please note that Wikipedia has many lists that can be found on commercial websites (e.g. The Criterion Collection) but in many cases a listing at wikipedia can be a tremendous resource for those who want to link to further information about a subject and find links to look into a subject in depth. Sure, someone could go to Osprey (or Criterion) and look at their publication lists, but the point here is to recognize that these publishers have created interesting resources. I would think that listing a series of books in print on military history on a site where you can quickly link to further information on the subjects covered in these volumes would be at least as much to the whole point of wikipedia as it is to have a listing for every cereal product ever produced by General Mills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmrazavi (talk • contribs)
 * Well, the question is, is the Essential Histories series notable, i.e. has it received non-trivial, critical coverage in independent sources so we can write a neutral encyclopedia article about it. If so, let's get the sources and write the article.  If not, let's redirect.  But either way, let's not keep this page in its current form, which is neither an encyclopedia article nor an acceptable list per WP:LIST.  Pan Dan 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is more about maintaining a list of publications (current and potentially out of print) that can be a resource to people in the near future who might need a quick check of publications about these areas of history. Please note that in the section on Aviation Elite Units and Combat Aircraft the lists have proven to be a way of pointing out some absences in wiki of articles about certain things that might easily pass the notability muster. I realize that wiki is all about "notability" as the prime motivator, but perhaps notability + utility is a better equation. Otherwise why bother challenging a list of publications about major historical events and not challenge such wiki-gems as "List of Star Wars books?" I would think that would be as much an issue of "advertisement" as this. Please feel free to wikify the format of this list into something more acceptable. But this is a major publication series that would be interesting to have information on here. Unless information isn't important. Again, please take a look at "Hard Case Crime" and "List of Criterion Collection Releases" (or, more to the point, Loeb Classical Library) for a guide to why this series (and its companions) should be included here. We shouldn't be shilling for publishers (and hopefully people will have some critical responses to the works cited), but we do have to recognize when a series has some degree of weight. (see also, Library of America series) --Wmrazavi 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The utility argument isn't really relevant because Wikipedia could be useful for lots of things that are not appropriate to put here. And if people are looking for references on historical topics why would they want a page specifically on Osprey publications?  And there's always this.  If you think this list can point out absences in Wikipedia of articles about certain things, then by all means add it to WikiProject History.  That's no reason to put in the mainspace.  Finally, if there are other lists on Wikipedia that are as inappropriate as this one, then those lists should be removed also. Pan Dan 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I look forward to seeing all those other lists deleted as well. Have fun with that. I suppose I should enjoy them while they're still around. I kind of enjoyed having a resource available where I could like up the names of long-defunct breakfast cereals and to figure out if I had managed to read every Kurt Vonnegut book. But I suppose what I've been enjoying about wikipedia have been those pages that have been running somewhat counter to the guiding principles of deletion and I can't really argue about that because the rules do seem to favor you and calling attention to the anecdotal evidence of other pages that I liked will only speed their deletion. The principles are clear, I'm astray and you're right. Thank you for your time. --Wmrazavi 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad we agree on the principles. I just want to say, I think you're making a mistake by equating this list with all the other lists you mentioned. Some lists are acceptable and some lists are not. The criteria for inclusion of lists, which I mentioned above (WP:LIST), are helpful to look at in every case. Pan Dan 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)