Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography


 * 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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Um, is this the kind of thing we want in mainspace? Is it not more suited to a talk subpage for internal use? I'm ambivalent, but I guess it just feels to me that it ought to fall under WP:NOT, though I haven't seen one before and I can't see bibliographies of this sort listed under any of the section headings there. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Bibliographies and Category:Bibliographies by subject. In the future, please don't resort to AFD until you're pretty confident you have a valid deletion candidate; it's not there to answer your questions. Try instead to raise questions on policy or guideline discussion pages, on the talk pages of articles, or the user talk pages of contributors. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your earlier message. Thank you for providing the links, and using them I was able to find a handful of existing articles with the same intent and a similarly narrow focus (e.g. Bibliography of fly-fishing, List of books about bacon). As such, I am happy for this discussion to be closed. That said, I do not agree with your analysis that AfD is not there to "answer my questions": I was raising one, very specific question, about whether or not the article should be deleted. That quite clearly is the intent of AfD. Indeed, though you may not have liked my grammatical construction, I was in fact sketching an argument for deletion which I thought had a reasonable chance of proceeding (mostly based on my relative difficulty finding any material that differentiated between the various type of bibliography article. In any case, I agree its a moot point. Best, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood, but you said you were "ambivalent," which to me meant you weren't sure whether this needed to be deleted, and AFDs shouldn't be started unless you have already decided something should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (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.