Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of slavery in the United States


 * 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The result was keep‎ (withdrawn)__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography of slavery in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A nice project, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 21:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is not an appropriate subject for wikipedia. WP:NOTDIRECTORY certainly applies, along with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. User:Let'srun 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - My first thought is that this is not appropriate, per WP:NOTCATALOG. However, per WP:STANDALONE/WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, this does seem permissible as stated: Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area. I'm open either way. This seems like a bit of a grey area. Thoughts anyone? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. : The Bibliography of slavery in the United States is no different from any other standalone bibliography in Wikipedia. Two relevant examples: Bibliography of the American Civil War and Bibliography of the United States Constitution, the latter of which was nominated for deletion last year and not only survived but has since been rated of High Importance in several respects. Also, the bibliography on slavery is not even close to being a "complete" directory, since there are at least 20,000 related books and articles on the subject. Evidence: Bibliography of Slavery, University of Virginia. As I noted in the article's lede paragraph, this is primarily "a guide", and accordingly I encouraged readers to consult the bibliographies of related articles for "more complete listings" on the issue's many sub-topics. I should also note that Wikipedia includes countless list pages on far more trivial subjects and that are far more complete, so the policies cited seem to be either selectively or randomly applied, though in general I support their purposes. To let everyone know, I will be asking a few other editors who have been helpful in offering suggestions for improving the article to add their comments to the AfD; however, I don't intend to politic for my POV. Allreet (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -It is very suitable for Wikipedia. I agree with  Allreet and disagree with Edward Woodrow. It is simply false to say this is a simple "catalog" --such a catalog would list tens of thousands of items. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per : Lists of works include bibliographies.... Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep we have many fine subject bibliography pages and this is a crucial topic in U.S. history. jengod (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, this bibliography is probably one of the best collections about the topic presently available, and should be a featured article rather than being inexplicably focused on for deletion. Well defended above, an obvious viable topic for a bibliography, and I would ask the nominator to please be much more selective if they intend to continue nominating articles, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2023 (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.

* — Sorry I missed this. For whatever it's worth, the idea of deleting this article is simply absurd, and would open the door for the removal of the many other lengthy Bibliographies here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)