Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing


 * 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. Userfication seems no longer necessary, if it is feel free to contact me.  Sandstein  17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability, just a laundry list Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Noting User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists and the recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Core_Collection_albums_in_The_Penguin_Guide_to_Jazz, this list derived entirely from one editor's work is presumably in a similar position? AllyD (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove all redlinks. The fact of being in a reliable Who's Who estabilishes notability; being women in a formerly male-dominated field establishes encyclopedic interest, but the article should not be a haven for redlinks. Should be limited to WP articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Reading Red link hardly justifies delinking in this case. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Irrespective of whether Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing is a "reliable Who's Who" with its own notability (it doesn't have an article), or whether the women so listed are notable, or whether the women are redlinks, this is still problematic for copyright reasons.  A creative selection process was used by Jane Eldridge Miller, editor of the book.  That means this list is not a simple list of facts like a telephone directory, and so is subject to copyright. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Setting aside the copyright issue, I also think this needs to go purely on notability grounds. I don't see any of the third-party coverage that would be necessary to make the book itself notable; indeed, we do not have an article for Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing.  If the book is not notable, surely its selected list of authors is not independently notable either, letting us sidestep the list/copyright concerns for now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any source that will allow us to determine if this is a copyright infringement? Without clear guidance, I don't see this discussion getting anywhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a subjective list that is of questionable encyclopedic value (Unlike lists like award winners for which inclusion criteria are clear). Also no evidence of notability of the actual list. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist comment - No consensus yet on whether the list is notable. However, if the copyright issue proposed is valid, it may have to be deleted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Lacks notability, the only place this info is found is in the book, there has been no coverage independent of the book so it is not notable. Also from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "articles on works of non-fiction, .... should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" This is just a summary of the works' contents. Maybe also for copyright issues. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - since I put the page up, I may have some bias. The copyright issue - if valid - would be conclusive - though the core jazz discussion doesn't make it sound like an open-and-shut case to me. Perhaps people at the libraries or bibliographies wikiprojects would know more about the law as it's been interpreted in this area. If there is consensus that the page needs to be deleted, presumably (as with the core jazz) I could keep the redlinks on a user page. I also wonder if a list a bit like this one would allow the relevant information (which specialised reference works have written about which women writers) to be kept in a non-problematic way. (A case against this list would that it would be very long - slightly relatedly, there's a problem with references needing a silly number of backlinks if done in the usual way.) Dsp13 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In order (a) Move to a subpage of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles without a redirect (this removal of the page form article space removes the pages from google and friends, reducing the impact of any possible copyright issues) (b) add each blue-linked item on the list to any appropriate women's writing categories and has this reference work as a reference and then remove it from the list (this requires someone familiar with the Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which has some wrinkles) (c) write articles for the red-linked items (yes, hard work) (d) delete the page once everything is written. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck in favour of improved suggestion below, in which I not the closing admin bear the brunt of the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really don't think there is any real copyright concern here. The Who's Who book here is not itself just a list of names; it's a selection of brief biographies. A list of biographies appearing in that book therefore doesn't copy it in any substantial way, but is instead just an alphabetized table of contents. Why we would want a list of biographies featured in that work is another question. It might be a good to-do list for identifying missing articles, but unless the book itself is particularly notable, or being included in it is considered some kind of honor in the literary world, I don't see a reason for maintaining this list in article space. So I think following Stuartyeates' suggestions is the best way to go. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The redlinking issue is a red herring. There are many kinds of selection criteria for lists, and redlinks can always be replaced by ordinary text. Given the title of this article, the appropriate inclusion criterion would be all the names in the Who's Who. However, the book has over 1000 entries, so that would be unwieldy. Perhaps the Who's Who should be used as a reference for a list like List of 20th century women writers. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have Category:20th-century women writers and Category:21st-century women writers to help generate such a list. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is already covered by List of women writers. "Who's Who" book list is non-notable and adds no value as a qualified list. Red links can be added to the talk page of the List of women writers as guide for biography development. Dkriegls (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (the following is not legal advice or opinion: the author is not a lawyer) List of facts are only protected by intellectual property (IP) law in the US as a copy-edited image (the book was published in the UK). The facts themselves can be moved into a new list that looks different and not violate the IP. The prose description may fall under IP protection depending on how different the use is or how close it is to original text. Directly lifting of prose should be demonstrated to make any accusations of copy right violation for deletion. But then, only the prose would violate the IP, not the list. I already voted for delete, but not on IP grounds. (the preceading is not legal advice or opinion: the author is not a lawyer) Dkriegls (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A list which requires a bit of creativeness or editorial judgment to compile is still copyrightable. That was shown when, for example, the editor included Ratna Sarumpaet and Nh. Dini but not Siti Rukiah (I came across this list when writing Ratna Sarumpaet's article, so my examples are Indonesian). Look at Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time for an example of a copyrighted list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's not what this is. There is no arrangement to this work other than alphabetical, and the selection was for whose biography to include. A bare list of the names of those biographies is not the work itself, just a list of its contents. The Rolling Stone list is itself the work, a creative selection of song titles in a creative arrangement, such that copying the list is copying the work. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete from article space as not claiming notability for the work "Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing" or the honour of being included. No WP:RS are included. Further, I ask the closing admin to Userfy the article to my userspace and I'll ensure that all red links are added to WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the red links to my to-do list and will work to create the biographies as well. Dkriegls (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the list of all the red linked authors.
 * 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.