Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book rebinding


 * 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 No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the conversation at User_talk:RoySmith, I have been persuaded that No Consensus would be a better summary of the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Book rebinding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for an IP; this was redlinked in the AfD logs. Obviously I don't know what their rationale would've been, but I can certainly provide one of my own. This seems to have been hanging around unsourced for over 3 years, and in my searches I could find nothing that would put the subject over the bar of notability set out at WP:GNG Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's nothing there (in the article or in the world), and it is a useless search term as well. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect It sounds to me like a reinforcement kind of bookbinding, which IMO might suit Bookbinding. My Google search just straigh-up equalizes "rebinding" with "repair". However some bookbinders does use the word "rebinding"  (not RS, just show existence of use).  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 10:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve or redirect to Bookbinding . There are more than a hundred results for "book rebinding" in GBooks alone, quite a few of which appear relevant. It is at least an obvious redirect and is not, therefore, eligible for deletion. It seems to satisfy GNG, though SPINOFF may be more important where there is an obvious target for merger. There isn't much in the article at the moment. James500 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am now convinced this clearly should be kept due to the sources identified by Andrew. James500 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I've attended editathons at the British Library's conservation centre where they have interesting exhibits about such work. There's plenty of other documentation for this out there including:
 * Preservation and Conservation for Libraries and Archives
 * Bookbinding & Conservation by Hand
 * The Changing Role of Book Repair in ARL Libraries
 * Book Repair and Restoration
 * Basic Bookbinding
 * Andrew D. (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Rebinding isn't limited to "Conservation and repair". There are companies that will rebind modern books for vanity reasons. I know some gamers who will rebind rulebooks into larger tombs with custom leather covers. The only question then is notability and the article has no sources. Suggest tagging the article for sources (or finding some) and revisit AfD if needed later. -- Green  C  15:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to bookbinding. Judging from the titles listed by (which otherwise remain mysterious due to the absence of even the most basic bibliographic details), this could be mentioned there, if at all necessary.  claims to have found sources, but doesn't list any nor are any given in has he added any to the article. As it stands, does not meet WP:GNG and is an unlikely search term, so I would be fine with "delete", too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mysterious? Do you really need more than the title in such cases?  Anyway, a full citation of a scholarly work was provided when I expanded the article, as that's a more appropriate place for such detail.  You don't seem to have read this version as you seem to be saying that there no sources in the article, which is incorrect.  Perhaps you need to clear your cache or something. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. What are these? Books? Book chapters? articles in magazines or academic journals? When/where published? If you have enough info to get the title, why not add more info so that people can actually have a look at these sources themselves, instead of forcing them to copy your work and waste valuable time? There's only a single source in the article. After a number of clicks and then searching in the book for "rebinding", I find 6 mentions, none of them substantial (such as describing what it is or why people would do it). It certainly never gets beyond a dictionary definition, nor does it look like something different enough from bookbinding to warrant a stand-alone article. I have clarified my above remark to remove the impression that I am saying there are no sources in the article: I was referring to the sources that James500 has found, but doesn't list. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read many pages of that source and found its descriptions of why and how collectors rebound their acquisitions to be quite detailed and interesting. Here are five more sources.  I shall continue to provide just titles as they alone seem ample evidence of notability:
 * Limp vellum binding and its potential as a conservation type structure for the rebinding of early printed books. A break with 19th and 20th century rebinding attitudes and practices.
 * Rebinding Islamic Manuscripts: a new direction
 * Rebinding the Klencke Atlas
 * The restoration rebinding of Speculum Naturale by Vincent of Beauvais, and the subsequent development of several options for conservation rebinding structures based on details found during the restoration
 * Conservation Standard Rebinding of Single Books: a review of current practice at the Newberry Library
 * Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * NRVE requires the existence of sources, not their citation. There is a link at the top of this page to GBooks. It produces more than a hundred results. Anyone who feels those sources are unsatisfactory should be capable of explaining why without needing me or anyone else to provide a list of them. James500 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with User:Andrew Davidson that there is no reason whatsoever to ask, at AfD, for further bibliographic details of a book that comes up immediately in GBooks on a search of its title such as this. NRVE does not require that the title, let alone such details, be provided at AfD, as long as the book verifiably exists. James500 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NRVE is intended for articles. Here, we are at AfD and you are trying to convince the participants at the debate thatthe subject being discussed here is notable by providing evidence. Ghits (even GBookshits) do not establish notability. Listing some titles without indicating what they are and how they establish notability is not a particularly strong way of presenting evidence, either. Unless you provide clear evidence, all you are doing is hand waving and you should not be surprised if people then ignore your comments. The "evidence" produced by you and Andrew boil down to "it's notable, just search and you'll find sources". Sorry, not good enough. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is manifest nonsense from start to finish. NRVE is very clear "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation" (my emphasis). And of course Andrew has cited numerous sources. Since you expressly refuse to even look at the sources that Andrew has clearly identified to you, and since you expressly refuse to make even a token effort to look for sources with a search engine (just looking at the article is not good enough), I expect that your !vote will be accorded exactly zero weight by the closing admin. And rightly so. James500 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * James, it's just like your refusal to bolden your "keep" !votes. That doesn't invalidate them, but it does make it harder to spot them. (And, yes, I know that admins are supposed to read the complete discussion before closing, but why make things harder for your fellow editors?) In any case, Andrew has, like you, contributed zero sources to this discussion, just given some titles (books? articles? reliable?) that may stand for anything from an in-passing mention to an in-depth discussion (unlikely, since "re-binding" is just the same as "binding again"). GHits don't count for notability, you know that as well as I do, so back up your claims or be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite capable of putting the titles that Andrew has given you into Google's search engine. A search for Rebinding the Klencke Atlas in GBooks immediately produces, as the very first result, an article in the British Museum Quarterly. It is obvious what that expression refers to. Neither you, nor anyone else, needs to be told what it is, because it is obvious, and it would be obvious even to a very small child. Anyone who claims that they need assistance to determine what that title refers to cannot possibly be telling the truth. Anyone who demands further bibliographical details is simply being obstructive because that person must realise that such details are not needed to identify the source. And it is the same for the other nine books and articles contributed to this discussion by Andrew. There is no reason why I, Andrew or anyone else should provide you with any further information about those nine books and articles which you are quite capable of finding all by yourself, easily and in no time at all, but obviously, for some reason, just don't want to. James500 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Klencke Atlas was a particular challenge because of its great size and weight. Note that the search links above include JSTOR and that provides a preview of the article. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, as the petulant very small child that I am, and despite my difficulties with telling the truth, I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote. The reason for this is that I have not seen any evidence anywhere that "book rebinding" is not just the same as (repeated) bookbinding. --Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Provided that the topic of this article is different from Bookbinding. I think it can be. The approach in Bookbinding is the modern one, where old books are preserved or restored to their original state. This article could be about how books are transformed by rebinding. The Jensen Reshaping source was very good on that – how old books were rebound into something that would look good on the bookshelf of an 18th-century gentleman. I found another source that will appeal to English majors, about how the material organization of printed materials defines the way we think about them, so that rebinding changes how we view the texts. Anyway, I think the Bookbinding article is long enough already. If we want to explore these other ideas this article would be a good place to do it. Or just go into more detail about rebinding. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and is distinct from Bookbinding enough to at minimum have a separate section in the article on bookbinding. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:15, 6 December 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.