Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by Barbara Cartland


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List of books by Barbara Cartland
Non-linked, unwikified list of romance novels; can be linked and wikified, but what's the point? Paul 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the number of second-rate bands with their own discographies, why shouldn't a well-known, best selling author (of potboilers, to be sure) have the equivalent? Monicasdude 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question Looking at other authors, it seems the precedent is to have catagories of books by said author. I was originally going to vote merge as a bibliography on Cartlands page, but given the apparent precedent, shouldnt we catagorise? Jcuk 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand to include all her 724 books (according to the Barbara Cartland article). We do have detailed descriptions of individual pokemon. Why should we treat silly pop cultural topics differently depending on whether the target audience consists of teenage geeks or middle-aged uneducated women? (OK, I'm sure that was a prejudiced generalization, but whatever...) A category is not a great idea, as I doubt we will actually get articles on individual books. u p p l a n d 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a category wouldn't be in chronological order and couldn't give the dates of publication, as I'm sure this will eventually. Kappa 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: this page would be far more coherent as a wikified bibliography on her own page. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]]
 * With 724 books? Kappa 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's essentially a bibliography and bibliographies are in encyclopedias. I take it will end up too large to be in her article though so having it as a separate list sounds valid.--T. Anthony 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (in line with what u p p l a n d says). Personally, I think Barbara Cartland novels stink, but we've got (for instance) exhaustive lists of Bionicle Toas, Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game cards and baseball statistics. It would represent a systematic bias - call it ageism, sexism, classism, whatever you want - not to include these massively popular novels just because they're outside the usual patterns of geekery. Tearlach 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per u p p l a n d Choalbaton 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Moat books wouldn't or shouldn't have their own article, but a list of their names and perhaps brief details/points to note about them would be a great idea.Evil Eye 15:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This author is certainly notable and prolific enough for her own bibliography page. 23skidoo 20:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep God help me. But nly because the alternative, an article on each book and a category, is simply too horrible to contemplate... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I take it back, then. Paul 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- JJay 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JzG, this is the lesser of two evils. Mike 12:22, 12 January 2006 (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.