Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The nominator has agree to keep the article; whether to stubify it is an editorial decision. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this seems like a worthwhile book, and should be used as a reference itself in other articles, it does not seem to be notable since there is no secondary discussion of it cited. The reproduction of its table of contents might also be a copyright problem. It was nominated for deletion before, in the early days of WP, but I don't think the reasons given for keeping would hold up in today's WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary source discussion = non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur in the reasons stated for deletion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it's a legitimate book, then should be kept. Maybe we should ask the author to expand a little more before just making a judgement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a legitimate book alright. I Googled it but couldn't find any sources that said anything beyond its existence. So there is really nothing for the article to say. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment couldn't this be accomplished by starting a new category: ?  Racepacket (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about List of extreme rightists and cite the book as a source? (The article could just about be renamed as a list and then no problems for me.) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. Keep the article but lose the list. See below. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This is a significant reference book which I have often seen in major libraries, and I think it has a degree of notability as a standard reference work on the subject. YMMV but a look at a Google book search finds it cited extensively as a source. I wonder, though, if the article needs to be quite such a linkfarm as it is at present. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen some other cases where we weren't allowed to reproduce a list from a book, etc. Like the Forbes list of the 100 richest people, the Rolling Stone list of the 50 greatest albums, and things like that.  So I don't think the article as it is is going to work.  I would like to see an informative article about the book, but even keeping it as a stub wouldn't be bad. As I said before, the list could stand on its own as a new article, with the book cited as a source.  And of course other extreme rightists could be added with other sources cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We tend to allow lists of the '50 greatest' type only where the notability is clear and the selection is made by a process with some degree of rigour - eg the AFI lists of films which are voted for by industry professionals and rankings of US Presidents by academic historians. We get rid of simple popularity polls, and with magazine selections there is also an issue of copyright because the selection is a creative input. It's possible that a List of political figures on the extreme right could work with this book as one of its references ('extreme rightists' is an Americanism). Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as a standard reference for far right studies.  I'd prefer that the links stay, as it's a good way to see what work needs to be done.  I'm not opposed to the creation of a "List of" page, but something similar has been deleted before: Articles for deletion/List of fascists.  —Morning star (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as standard reference work. I used it myself quite a few times whe I was completing a PhD on this subject and there are plenty of reviews in politics and history academic journals (not always favourable but it does demonstrate notability). Keresaspa (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The huge list could fall foul of WP:UNDUE, but the book does appear to be notable judging from the above comments and a quick looksie myself. Quantpole (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on what you all have said, I would rather keep the article as a stub but take off the list of people. I think it's undue weight to define a person by what one book says about him.  Also the list is not very useful to the reader since it only gives the name and birth/death dates of each person.  There is no other information, say on the group he belonged to, that would make a reader pick out one name to learn more. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Does that suggest that if there was a quick mini-bio for each name that the list would be worth keeping? If so I would be happy to add them in, although I'll hold off on doing so until this nomination is closed just to ensure that there is consensus over that approach. Keresaspa (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears to be notable, but the list is arguably a recreation of the table of contents, which is protected by copyright. The research that goes into creating a list like that is not trivial. See Articles for deletion/Top 100 Global Universities for a somewhat related discussion about lists and copyright. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (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.