Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Abkhazia


 * 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. Courcelles 21:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of Abkhazia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete and create a separate "Further Reading" section on the main Abkhazia article or with WP:WikiProject Abkhazia. This is just a random list of books related to the subject. It is not notable in its own right; it is just loosely grouping related texts and is thus WP:OR. Such a bibliography is useful, but does not need its own article. IgnorantArmies?! 16:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While the nom's statement makes editorial sense, this does not appear to be a sufficient rationale for deletion per policy. It would be a decent reason for an editorial merge, but that should be proposed separately.  Note that this appears to have been accidentally DELSORT'ed to fictional elements when it is not. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Abkhazia. As the nominator suggests, this is suitable for a "further reading" section in the Abkhazia article, and is better presented in there than as a spinout article. But we don't need an AfD to do this! In the future it would be easiest to merge/redirect the work yourself.  Them From  Space  03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably could get away with it for a place like Abkhazia (ie. not that well-known), but what about the 44 other bibliographies of countries or regions? There isn't really another place to begin a discussion for merging and redirecting all of these, and I think there would be at least some objectors to just merging these. IgnorantArmies?! 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you think this should be rescued? It is already very well sourced. Its appropriateness as a stand-alone article is why it is at AfD, not its notability or verifiability. Mistaggings such as this is why the ARS has a reputation for canvassing.  Them From  Space  21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not have a reputation for canvassing, only for people who regularly try to delete something getting upset when things don't go their way. Happens all the time.  Anyway, if you aren't nominating it for its notability or verifiability, then you need to close this entirely and stop wasting everyone's time.  Do a merge discussion if that is what you are after.   D r e a m Focus  17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If the books come from a legitimate educational press, or are published by experts in the field, or official government institutions, then it is fine to list them all. I see Oxford University Press put out one of them.  So it belongs on the list.  I added to the list a book funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affair and published by Columbia University Press.  Google book search for just "Abkhazia" and you get 56,300 results, but search for "Abkhazia" "university press" and that narrows it down to 5,120.  University presses only publish reliable educational material of course.   D r e a m Focus  17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.