Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bibliography lists


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

List of bibliography lists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Due the very broad scope of this list, is sufficient unless we want a huge list. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - good grief --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete - per Sue_Rangell :-) - Nabla (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Hyperboliciousness is all fun and all, but coming back to reality for a bit, what is your actual argument for why the article (and articles like it) do not deserve a place on Wikipedia? :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "coming back to reality"?! The list is impossible to use due to its size - if it provided some structure, maybe, maybe, it would have some use. Anyway the list is impossible to maintain, adds nothing to a simple search, and is likely to omit articles amking them harder to find. - Nabla (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to cause offense. I was just commenting on the unique argument "good grief", which you supported :). At the very least, this article would be very useful for Wikipedians to analyse the various different articles in this "article type", and see what makes a good or bad article. These biography articles are actually a subset of lists, and must therefore have their own style. Some articles do a good job of this, and others do not. Having all of them in one place makes it a lot easier to compare and contrast. At most, this article could hopefully lead to a much better, and better navigated Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article should be called Index of topical bibliography articles. It is clearly an index (see Manual_of_Style/Lists), and the header does not allow author bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Categories and lists on the same topic are allowed: Categories, lists, and navigation templates. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The best way of estimating the potential size of this list is a table of lists covered by WikiProject Bibliographies. There are 514 bibliographies, about half of which are topical. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - usually an AfD on a list is decided by notability. The appropriate criteria for lists are discussed at WP:LISTN. Sources must be found for the list as a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, shall we have a "List of lists of lists" next? This is what categories are for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Holy shit, we do. Come on... Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 6 January 2013 (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.