Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  of the Tonga people (Africa) Stats )

Unencyclopedic, Not a single reference or citation, Stand alone list What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, cannot and will not be improved, AS a large totally unsourced lengthy-unconsise list it Lacks notability of lists Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. Wikipeida does have many bibliographies and lists that are justified for inclusion, these lists are generally short, they have citations, they point back to ISBN and equivalents, and many times they have been used to support Wikipedia articles, this list has no meaning because it lacks organization, it is face-value-unattributed-information that cannot be organized, this list is also original research. A small list of important works on this could be included, there is no way to find out which are the notable books for inclusion without conducting extensive research on the subject. The list appears to be an entire library catalog that has been copied from some unknown source, or is original research. Sometimes having less information provides more information, quality vs. quantity. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - @nom see WikiProject Bibliographies. Unless you're saying "works about the Tonga people" is not a notable subject (i.e. that insufficient sources exist which talk about "works about the Tonga people", regardless of whether they're presently cited), I don't understand the policy this AfD is based in. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When you have a list of hundreds of entries without any citation or differentiation, the list itself is meaningless. Please review the list and do a search above for "find sources," and you will see that the article is unsupportable.. Did you read the list, look at the entry, and do a find sources? --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - Not enough support to include only those entries that are independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. WP:NOTESAL-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:LISTN: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
 * Whereas lists of examples which are not intended to be complete, like a list of bands or a list of alumni, are almost always limited to notable entries, that's not an absolute for lists -- and bibliographies are a good example of when that's simply not the case.
 * As with all AfDs based on notability (and this addresses some of your comments elsewhere, too) -- sources do not have to be cited in the article, but only need to exist for something to be considered notable, and it's the responsibility of the nominator to have searched for them before nominating. The question here is whether a bibliography of the Tonga people is notable, which would require the existence of sources that consider collective works about the Tonga people (other bibliographies, for example).
 * Sources: Tonga: A New Bibliography; [taken from the biblio itself] Turner, Beryl. 1983. Bibliography of the Kafue Flats. University of Zambia: Kafue Basin Research Committee.; A Bibliography of Fiji, Tonga, and Rotuma, Tonga bibliography at everyculture.com, AnthroGlobe Bibliography: Bibliography of Tonga, Encyclopedia of the Nations - Tonga bibliography, Tonga Timeline, Tonga section of An International Bibliography of African Lexicons, Ida Emily Leeson bibliographical notes, Bibliography of Tonga focused on Mormonism, huge bibliography at anu.edu.au....
 * WikiProject Bibliographies has more information. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, Just which of the hundreds of random entries are notable?  This list is meaningless. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You of course have the option to improve the entry to counter the concern.Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Undergraduate Student Dissertation, illustrative why the hundreds of items listed within are not notable.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess this has dialogue has run its course. See above. Individual items' notability has no bearing on AfD. Might be a good idea to prune some, sure, but that's irrelevant here. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – an item belongs on the list if it is a Bibliography of the Tonga. Nothing random or indiscriminate about it. Oculi (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Topic is notable and the article can be sourced to independent, reliable, third-party sources. That said, the list in its current form is useless and will remain so until it sorted by topic and (hopefully) annotated.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2014 (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.