Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amistad Press books


 * 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. Consensus clearly against deletion. Discussion of a page move or category creation can be continued on the article's talk page. czar ⨹   04:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Amistad Press books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 00:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I can't see how the article advertises anything. The article just seems like a list of books published by Amistad Press, I can't see how it would advertise anything.  -Fim atic   (talk &#124; contribs) 00:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a sales catalogue from Amistad. And without independent sources it is just an unverified list, violating What Wikipedia is not. Beside that: this is a list of non-notable ( = unlinked) books issued by a publisher not notable enough to have its own article. The Banner talk 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  00:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Does not look anything like a sales catalog as there are no prices or reviews. There is not one thing on this entry that is promotional. It also does not violate anything. Notable or non-notable is very subjective.
 * Keep, if this article violates Wikipedia policies then so does this List of books published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Farrar,_Straus_and_Giroux_books) since this page was created in the same style as that page.Rjradic (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comparing is very useful if other articles have the exact same format.
 * Comparing is really more and more important. In the past Wikipedia was the Wild West;  now that it is more settled down we should be more and more concerned with creating consistency of treatment.  I kinda think Farar, Straus, and Giroux books are more clearly important than Amistad Press ones.  Perhaps there should be a list of Amistad Press books, at least as a section within an article on the imprint/former publisher, but the list need not be a comprehensive list of all of their publications;  perhaps it should just be the more important ones.  Comparisons matter though, about fairness and about making AFD and other Wikipedia processes semi-rational. -- do  ncr  am  22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * KeepThis is a very helpful list from one of the most respected imprints for multicultural literature. Schools and libraries will use if often. Kmccook (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Why is this article even being considered for deletion?? There is no promotion or bias attributed to this entry whatsoever. This is why users end up leaving Wikipedia and what keeps individuals from not editing here is the fear of the article not being accepted. This has got to stop. This article is in exactly the same format as this one: List of Farrar, Straus and Giroux books. This is how knowledge is disseminated to the masses. Restricting or refusing knowledge is a lost to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthowerto (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, doesn't look like advertising to me. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Beside that: this is a list of non-notable ( = unlinked) books issued by a publisher not notable enough to have its own article." <- Just because a page doesn't exist yet does not mean the subject is not notable enough. It just means we as Wikipedians are challenged to the task of adding knowledge to Wikipedia where it does not yet exist.  Hopefully by adding this page someone will recognize that these subjects are notable and should be added.  You can't assume because it doesn't yet exist on Wikipedia it shouldn't exist.  These ideas are not equal. Rjradic (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but probably should be moved to Amistad Press and edited to be a section there, first. It seems backwards to create a list of the imprint / former publisher's books, before an article about the publisher.  But the publisher/imprint is notable too and the list can exist as a section there.  -- do  ncr  am  03:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree not advertising. Move to Amistad Press may be appropriate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Question/suggestion to turn it into a category instead: Isn't this the type of thing that we typically use categories for? In other words, stuff like Category:HarperCollins books, Category:Penguin Books books and the like? The problem with lists like this is that they are going to be forever incomplete and also (most likely) end up being an extremely long, exhausting list of books that doesn't really accomplish much that a category wouldn't be able to accomplish in a far easier, cleaner, and faster format. With potentially long, exhausting lists like this at some point it would have to be pruned down by saying that only notable works published through Amistad Press should be on the page, as is the case with various other list articles that could have similar problems. Once we establish that only notable books (IE, books with enough coverage to merit an article) should be on the list, it makes it kind of obvious that rather than a long list we should instead have the category "Category:Amistad Press books" and mark at the top of the page "Books originally published by Amistad Press". I honestly don't see much reason for us to have a list page that lists every book a publisher made- that's just excessive and again (I want to emphasize this) it would be redundant to the creation of a category specific to Amistad Press books. As far as the books on the list go that don't have an article, dump 'em in this list, unless some of you want to try to make an article for some of the books. (And oh man, I would love you forever if any of you were to help out with the requested articles page as a whole.) Again, this seems sort of redundant to the pre-existing policy for lists of books by publishers, which is to make a category instead of a list page for the reasons stated above. tokyogirl79 10:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question, but the answer is well-resolved previously, in wp:CLT. That guideline is about the usefulness of having overlapping categories, list-articles, and navigation templates.  List-articles can include pictures and references and red-links while categories cannot.  They complement each other.  See wp:CLT.  If there is a category there can/should be a list and vice versa.  In this case, I honestly am not completely sure it is worth having a category for those with articles and having a list for all of the Amistad Press books, but I am pretty sure that having an article about the publisher/imprint and a section on at least the most notable books is worthwhile.  So perhaps the list should be reduced down, but that is a matter for argument at the talk page, not for AFD.  Surely some sub-list is worth listing. -- do  ncr  am  22:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many such lists here on Wikipedia that could forever be edited. For example, List of Egyptologists or Hittitologist. These are just two of many similar lists on Wikipedia which could be edited indefinitely. If a list is something that Wikipedia does not want to engage in that more than half of the entries should be deleted. --Wthowerto
 * Well perhaps. I think there is room/need for a list of the publisher/imprint's books, at least the most notable ones among them, at least as part of an article about the publisher/imprint itself.  It is okay for a list to be an incomplete list of items of its type, focusing on the more important items of the type.  There are many such incomplete lists in Wikipedia.  Not clear if there should be a comprehensive list of ALL of the Amistad Press books here.  That is matter for discussion at Talk page of the article. -- do  ncr  am  22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I opened what I hope may be a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. In passing it includes mention of this AFD and also of an ongoing RFD about List of For Dummies books. It's not wp:canvassing to do so (it is not biased, not at personal talk pages, is transparent) and frankly I am really seeking general discussion and feedback; please do consider contributing to general discussion there. -- do ncr  am  00:16, 9 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.