Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible


 * 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 all pages beginning with ...Class B, subclass. Wikibooks has determined that this information is inappropriate for their project. The following articles will be deleted:
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BD -- Speculative philosophy
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BF -- Psychology
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BJ -- Ethics
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BL -- Religions. Mythology. Rationalism
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BM -- Judaism
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BP -- Islam. Bahá'ísm. Theosophy
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BQ -- Buddhism
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BR -- Christianity
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BT -- Doctrinal Theology
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BV -- Practical Theology
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BX -- Christian Denominations
 * Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass B -- Philosophy (General) If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion as well. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And all other articles beginning with "Library of Congress Classification," save the parent article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The Library of Congress has a detailed cataloguing system, which it has revealed in full on its website, here. Some editors have undertaken to copy all this information to Wikipedia, and are in the process of doing so.

My concern is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm okay with having library classification categories for each letter, but once we get into the numbers it's too specific for my taste. (Of course, nobody said I had to go look at it in the first place.) I am nominating the entire class of similar articles for discussion; there's nothing special about this one, but I wanted to see what others thought about it.

The following suggestions seem reasonable to me: Let me know what you all think. YechielMan 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles on this level of specific classification (my preference).
 * Transwiki them to Wikisource, which is "the free library".
 * Keep all articles on library classification because they are sourced, notable, and useful.
 * Move this discussion to an appropriate talk page.

Support actions suggested by nom. The sample article provided is just data entry... if there was any encyclopedic context this would be a different case. Also, this information is duplicated by the Library of Congress, whose facilities would do a far better job of maintaining and updating this information. -- saberwyn 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Epbr123 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all This and other articles like it are useful as an organizational structure. We have the Dewey Decimal Classification as a organizational article, and I don't see anyone rushing to expunge that. For a visitor browsing through the listing, this provides detailed access to specific topics, just like browsing through a library, helping users find the appropriate information. NielsenGW 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki because this information really should be available but a list of information on the number is a reference work, not something that it would be reasonable to find in an encyclopedia. It's better to keep it than to remove it entirely but moving it to somewhere more appropriate would be best. —mako (talk•contribs) 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DGG 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment
 * 1) Actually both the table here and the tables on the LC site are summary tables. The actual ones are a great deal longer and more complicated and not available on the web for free (and ditto for Dewey--the ones in the articles referred to are an even more concise summary ). The tables at this level of specificity do not change very much, the way the more exact ones do.
 * 2) The full LC tables are not copyright, but they are very large--I will check the size and license status of the electronic version. ; the full Dewey tables are copyright, and that copyright is vigorously enforced.
 * 3) To see how a similar problem was dealt with, see unicode and its dependent pages and links/.
 * 4) Any way will do, as long as we do it consistently and don't fuss with it letter by letter and let whatever is decided be.  Disk space is cheap. Time spent in argument is not.
 * 5) Personally, I'd keep them in WP space as information important to the construction of articles.
 * 6) Otherwise here, organized as a category.
 * 7) Wikisource is a place to put text, not a place to put code--I do not see anything remotely like this there
 * 8) other ideas??
 * 9) Unless by some chance we all reach a agreement right now, the only practical thing is keep on this AfD, and discuss it elsewhere.
 * As fas a copyright goes, I believe the Dewey Decimal Classification system is owned by OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) but I do not know the degree they enforce their copyright. NielsenGW 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all This is just another sad exercise in taking something from some database and compulsively stuffing it into Wikipedia, creating a stale copy of what would be better looked up at the source database. There should be a master article on the LC classification system, and a link to where the curious could find current classification information. (I have always found it curious that they classifiers put the Bible in a section called "BS")Edison 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles at the subclass level, per Edison. I'd also suggest merging the class level into a single article; there's no searchability benefit from the current construction, and in fact there's a loss of readability. Mike Christie (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The level to merge would be the individual letter (B)--the entire classification makes an extremely long table. There are also several levels of summary tables, and once this article gets Kept, I will undertake to organize them.
 * I have asked at Wikibooks  what their feeling is on the question. DGG 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per Epbr123. The Filmaker 01:10, 3 April 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.