Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books associated with Oxford


 * 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 delete. There was a clear consensus for deletion. The keepers failed to overcome the argument of the deleters that this article lacked clear criteria for inclusion. As as been pointed out the alternative is to organically grow Oxford and that can be considered for a break out if it becomes too unwieldy. TerriersFan 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Books associated with Oxford
WP:NOT of loosely associated topics; in some cases the only connection to Oxford is the mention of the city's name in the story. Topic already covered in Oxford, no need for a stand-alone list to duplicate the notable examples. Masaruemoto 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- Bduke 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is indeed covered in the article on Oxford and it is also covered in the article on the University of Oxford. This article contains more information than those articles do, yet the literature sections there are probably too long. I suggest that this article be developed further and the lists in the other articles be cut back with a link here. --Bduke 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete already covered in other articles, no need to have it. Oysterguitarist 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete delete as indiscriminate, and open to an enormous permutation involving all sorts of media and all sorts of institutions. Oxford would make a cameo appearance in a book, and it's listed? No kidding?  Ohconfucius 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — I fail to see which of the five WP:NOT bullet points applies here. — Jonathan Bowen 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per list of loosely associated topics.  Port anything that is set in Oxford to the main article Corpx 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; this is an extremely tenuously associated list of items. EyeSereneTALK 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list per WP:NOT. VanTucky  (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — Oxford has notably strong literary associations as a historic university city, even in an international context. The article could be developed further. — Jonathan Bowen 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — I think this is a case of WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. If Oxford is notable enough, I am happy to have a go at this. By the way, there are other book lists for New York and Oakland (for example), so this is not such an isolated case. — Jonathan Bowen 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. How can one know if the list is ever complete? It can not be managed and is too loosely related. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — of course it will never be complete, but many (most?) lists on Wikipedia are not complete. There is a good argument to split the books into different categories however under WP:BB. — Jonathan Bowen 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Jonathan Bowen and WP:HEY. Develop as per Bduke above. If OUP isn't the single most important English language university press in the world, especially in the scholarly field, it's damn close to it. It's aura practically confers notability on anything associated with it, including this article. And it isn't just OUP, it's the literary associations of the town. Also, it's not about the completeness of the list, that's not a reason to delete.  After all, Wikipedia isn't complete.  I just don't see this as tenuous or indiscriminate, they are tied together because of their association with Oxford.  The article does need more work, but compare it now from when it was started. — Becksguy 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename: List of books associated with Oxford. Useful research source. I am not a fan of the list aspects to Wiki, but I have been convinced that they do serve a useful purpose, and there is a general consensus for their use. Stand alone lists also keep articles free of laundry lists. This particular list is no better or worse than average. SilkTork 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a cruft collection. Tolkien is listed; why not Lewis (he was at Oxford for a while too)? "Associated" is way too open-ended, of nothing else: if we listed books associated with London, we could pick up virtually everything in Britain not published by a university press! Mangoe 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — a case of Cruftcruft?! C. S. Lewis has been added as you suggest, thank you. — Jonathan Bowen 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a list of loosely associated topics. "Associated with Oxford" is too broad of a criterion -- books authored by people who have been associated with academic institutes in Oxford, books published by presses in Oxford (such as OUP), books written by people from the city of Oxford, books on Oxford... that leaves us with a list of loosely-related topics. utcursch | talk 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Utcursch Harlowraman 23:33, 20 August 2007 (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.