Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Gibraltar


 * 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. Perhaps further discussion about the general notability/criteria for these sorts of bibliographies is warranted, but insofar as current policy permits them, there appears to be consensus that this one is okay to retain. No prejudice against this conversation continuing elsewhere.  Go  Phightins  !  23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of Gibraltar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. Article is a borderline case at absolute best for WP:LISTN/WP:LISTPURP, presenting a heterogeneous list of books on a broad topic with little indication of use to readers. It has classic WP:SYNTH issues built into the process and which can't be avoided or edited out of. (Page creator has chosen not to be notified for AfDs.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The talk of WP:SYNTH is nonsense. The territory of Gibraltar is well-defined and rich in history and so there are numerous books and documents about it.  It is easy to find multiple published bibliographies for this place and this book has pages of them including A Gibraltar Bibliography; An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704 - 1934; A bibliography of Gibraltar 1939-1945; Gibraltar: bibliography - local and military history up to 28 February 1978; &c.  The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN easily while the purpose of the list is obvious and respectable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Existence of specialized bibliographies with specific themes (and certainly annotations as well!) is no basis for this bibliography that's just random titles of books on the broader topic. Wikipedia is not just a list of titles of unrelated publications on history, travel, and "Military Anecdotes" on a wide topic with no inclusion criteria. Unclear what makes this an encyclopedic compilation any more than typing "Gibraltar" into your library's catalogue or Google Books, or what the title of a handbook to visiting Spain being next to the title of a book on fortifications is supposed to provide readers. History_of_Gibraltar provides just as useful of a list of books on the territory. Reywas92Talk 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting similarities, I found this page is just a copy-and-paste of that references section when the page was created in 2013: . What the hell is the point of this???? Speedy delete as not a freaking article, just pointless duplication. Reywas92Talk 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We have similar bibliographies for most parts of the world – see Category:Bibliographies of countries or regions. There's no good reason to omit this one, especially as it is so clearly notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE, many of those articles pages were created by the same person and are likewise useless. There's no reason to keep this when when it's so clearly arbitrary and of no use and a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. Reywas92Talk 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I noted this in response to your similar comment in the other pending bibliography AFD, but just so it's here in this discussion as well: OSE states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." postdlf (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Our bibliography articles are often the labor of love for one person or otherwise completely neglected. Still, they are considered a valid form of list (although there's a good question of whether they belong in projectspace or mainspace). There is a good point about scope here, though. What is the inclusion criteria? What sort of inclusion criteria would be reasonable? Is it even realistic? My initial reaction is that we should Keep and Split as/when needed. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep largely per Rhododendrites. Maybe these should be in project space, I'm indifferent. But Gibraltar is unquestionably a valid topic for one so long as we do this, and all else is a matter for further development and discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar that already lists these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
 * Because the potential scope of this page is obviously broader than just what is presently used as a reference in that Wikipedia article. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - as opposed to Bibliography of South America. A single region/location, especially a small one, is a restrictive enough topic to have a sensible bibliography attached to it. Doing that for a continent is ludicrous, but here the scope is doable, and we are otherwise quite willing to entertain really large bibliographies. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar that already lists these books? Reywas92Talk 01:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not strike me as a sensible argument. Even if the two lists overlap or are largely identical at this point, the references at Gibraltar are determined by whatever is used as sources for material in that article, and can't contain anything further. That's not a restriction we have in standalone bibliographies. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Soooooo how about a WP:Further reading section? Keeping a duplicate copied-and-pasted page is not a sensible argument. Reywas92Talk 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The most obvious counter would be that "Further reading" sections are supposed to be a small adjunct to an article, and can/should never have the size of a dedicated bibliography page. It appears to me that your arguments are really aimed at the merit of standalone bibliographies as an article type, rather than this specific one. Maybe it's worth having a dedicated discussion on that? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * keep: The article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but it is a notable topic for a bibliography.  // Timothy :: talk  20:16, 10 March 2021 (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.