Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder


 * 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. Someone who has the expertise or reliable sources on which are the canonical works on the subject can merge them into a shorter list at the main article. Mirrors and caches of this page can be found at. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder

 * — (View AfD)

I think this falls into WP:NOT, it's just a list of books on a two topics, there are no criteria for inclusion and the books don't appear to be reference materials for the related articles; delete --Peta 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (see below). This is effectively the further reading list from the article on narcissistic personality disorder, moved to a subpage so as not to make that article too large. A further reading list seems perfectly encyclopedic. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This list clearly violates Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; trim the list to the most relevant texts and put it back in the article. --Peta 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to volunteer to check out all these books from a library and work out which is the most relevant? Its going to be quite difficult to work out which are the main works on the subject. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is nothing more than a list! Speedy Delete A3. --Dennisthe2 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remerge back into the main article Shouldn't be its own article. If there is a size issue with the main article, just reduce the text size and/or trim the list to the most important texts. We don't need thesis-style bibliographies on wikipedia - just the main works. Bwithh 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an excellent list of reading materials equally relevant to at least two seperate articles, not one, but far too long to include fully in either or both, and IMHO too relevant to trim. I do not see how deleting this article will improve the quality of Wikipedia in the slightest. --Zeraeph 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abridge and merge or transwiki to wikiversity. We don't do this.--Docg 10:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly the Wikiversity suggestion is not really viable as there is no open content here. --Zeraeph 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge back to the main article :: mikm t  18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Notable topic, non-notable article. Xiner (talk, email) 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incredibly strong merge I don't understand the "this list is on its own page because the article is long" rationale, as the article is not particularly long. I have no particular problem with keeping the entire list intact, but not as its own article. -- Kicking222 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't necessarily object to condense/merge, I am leaning toward Delete because I don't think it's wikipedia's place to provide an extensive bibliography/"further reading" list for every topic. Does it seem like an endorsement of these books to list them all as relevant to the articles?  Do we know for sure that they all exist?  Simple lists like this, unchecked, present too many problems.-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and furthermore, regardless of whether it's a good idea to have such a list in an article, the list itself certainly shouldn't be it's own article.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Whoever did this was well-meaning but didn't get how further reading sections are done on Wikipedia. Place important texts back on the pages concerned and delete the page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I accept the endorsement argument above and that this probably isn't an appropriate stand alone article. If we are to merge the content back to the main article, does anyone have an idea for how practically to ascertain which are the most important texts on the subject? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do know how to sort them enough to pull out the generic and completely irrelevant ones (it will also be possible to exclude any that also appear in references), also how to prioritise which article they go to (some are more applicable to one than the other). It can be done, as long as the "reading lists" stay under control in future. I take the point about "implied endorsement" but the effect seems even stronger when the list is appended to an article. --Zeraeph 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This entry is a bibliography, not an encyclopedia article. Agent 86 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP has numerous list articles. How is a list of books, such as List of books by Martin Luther, not encyclopedic? I'm not convinced that with inclusion criteria and some cleanup, this list could not be as encyclopedic as most other lists. Gimmetrow 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article such as this is of great value to persons pursuing research in the area. I really fail to see the harm, considering the great number of lists on Wiki, some quite frivolous.--Mantanmoreland 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If the parent article somehow managed to cite all of these, then I'd see a reason to keep the list. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Note that, if moving some of these items into the parent article is considered too bulky, consider using the HTML tag. Limiting a reference section to only the articles actually cited does help to reduce bloat. It would be perfectly OK to cite a single review article (preferably one available online) and tell WP readers that its references would be a good reading list. EdJohnston 20:49, 16 January 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.