Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories


 * 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. Pretty broad consensus that bibliographies are within the scope of acceptable content on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  02:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this article or delete American Civil War bibliography - This article is split from American Civil War bibliography due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of American Civil War bibliography prior to doing so.  If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came.  BTW, can this AfD be combined with Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories‎?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  08:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of books is what Wikipedia is not for. Statυs  ( talk ) 08:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Bibliographies are a recognized form of list in Wikipedia. There is even a Wikiproject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * QUESTION - Why isn't American Civil War bibliography being recommended for deletion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG I missed that one. Thanks. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The notability criteria for stand-alone lists require that there be a source for this list as a whole. Not one that includes all of the entries, but one that establishes it as a subject worth making a list for. There should also be clear selection criteria, or else it is original research. I am on the fence about deleting this article because I think it might be possible to satisfy these criteria -ut someone should demonstrate that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP the nominator did not explain why this is "indiscriminate". The list is grouped by state and is a SMALL subsection of the titles in Woodworth, Steven E.; ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature an Research. Greenwood Press, 1996. and Civil War Books; a critical bibliography (2 vol I) by Allan Nevins, Robertson, James I., and Bell Wiley, ( United States. Civil War Centennial Comission) 1970, which list thousands of titles. That means it meets the criterion: “A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki -  WikiProject Bibliographies. Moxy (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - this well-structured list has precise inclusion criteria, to which it conforms absolutely. It's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". It covers a notable topic, with indeed a large literature to guarantee that notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Arcane, perhaps, but let's not overthink this. Bibliographies are part of Wikipedia and they should be as a fundamental part of its educational mission — a starting place for research. This one is substantial and not comfortably mergable, and Wikipedia is better off with this than without it. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rjensen mentions two books as sources for this list. The first, The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature an Research, does not seem useful for establishing notability. I tried searching it for a random selection of several titles from the list, and found only two, one in the chapter "Eastern Theater" and the other with references scattered among multiple chapters. There is no chapter title connected with this subject. The other book, Civil War Books; a critical bibliography does have a chapter entitled "The Confederacy: State and Local Studies", so maybe it establishes notability for the list. However, I can't look inside it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the two books demonstrate that this type of bibliography is a serious pursuit of scholars, and that is the issue. Also demonstrative of the point is John Wright, Compendium of the Confederacy (1989) & Charles Dornbusch, Military Bibliography of the Civil War (4 vol 1970-87), two very detailed bibliographies that lists well over a thousand books on regiments & other units.


 * Keep - Considering bibliographies are accepted by a wide consensus, the rationale is nonsense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW KEEP per WP:SNOW I find these Civil War nominations very interesting.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  22:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm now convinced that the sources establish notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the fact that the main subject is a clear keep. Splits are a wikipedia recommendation based on ease-of-use and readability, and shouldn't be considered for delete until the notability of the parent is in question.  It is also unnecessary to have proof of notability in the split, only in the main article.    Th e S te ve   05:10, 28 November 2012 (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.