Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list. It's also not referenced.  KoshVorlon . Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...   16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For scope reasons I have moved the article to List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles. Other moves are possible. JJB 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks ‣ Too statistic-y or data-compilation-ish to be encyclopedic content but no reason to banish it beyond the access of normal users by simply deleting it. Fine content for a reference work at a project that has greater tolerance for original research.  At the very least, userfy instead of deleting. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as spinout of Rees's Cyclopædia with rename like List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles. Brought up at NORN. Applicable policy has been under discussion at VPP. There is no current WP:NOTLIST policy, and none of the categories of NOTDIR apply. Rather, this is an indication of the idiosyncratic notable scope of the encyclopedia. Primary sourcing is typical as with other articles, and several generic secondary sources can be added from the WP:MAIN article. Merge back to main is possible. JJB 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider merging with other content relating to Rees's Cyclopaedia. Sourcing is to the document itself, primary and reliable for this purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a weird trainspotterish article, or rather compendium of tables. I can't imagine that the world and her husband is crying out for this information; still, it's informative. The main artixcle is itself rather table-heavy, so I don't any advantage to adding to its collection of boxes. Paul B (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - as per Bandersnatch. This article is 100% original research. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Related discussion at VPP predates this; I jumped in given the NORN heading about Rees's as an excellent example of the VPP conversation. The flaws in the execution of WP:SUMMARY are irrelevant to AFD; the question is whether the scope is encyclopedic. One of these flaws is that the article's title does not properly set its scope, which is more typically List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles or the like (indicating move), as User:Itsmejudith affirms at NORN. Given that scope, and given the third-party sources added that treat that scope in policy-satisfying detail (talking about the uniqueness of the topics selected by Rees's), I believe users will find it eminently proper for the topics themselves to be listed and a list-inclusion criterion to be set such as "15 columns minimum". WP:CALC is not OR; inclusion criteria are valid; and author determinations taken from the 1820 journal are RS data that should be WP:PRESERVEd (which it's not clear would happen at WikiBooks). Accordingly this article seems to satisfy the global criteria for notable lists of book content like chapters. JJB 22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Bandersnatch. There is no reasoning given as to why the longest articles in Rees' are of any interest. The range of topics is of interest, but that's not what this list is catering to - it's just saying "here's some longer entries from the work".  You don't need tables and tables for showing what topics the work covers as from the lead, there appears to be enough sourcing that support such facts. As the work is clearly now PD, there's no reason that Wikisource can't take that as well as meta-data about the work like this, but on en.wiki, this data is trivial.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't attach too much importance to the "long articles". The length cut-off makes sense, since the long articles are the important ones, authored by some of the most distinguished writers of the period. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (or possibly merge). Quite simply, WP:NOTDIR is not relevant: not one of the eight bulleted entries under that guideline applies to the article. (And the nominator has recently put forward other articles on the same WP:VAGUEWAVE basis: 1, 2.) The encyclopaedia itself is notable and, while one could argue forever about what cut-off to use for "long" articles, the longer articles indicate what the encyclopaedia's compiler believed to be the most significant topics of the day. Perhaps the huge tables aren't necessary and maybe the information would be better presented as a section of the main article ("The main topics given significant coverage (more than 15 columns) are: aardvarks, bananas, ..."). Dricherby (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Initial review of sources indicates that the particular question of who wrote which article is not OR in that people have been indulging in it for 200 years. The sources I just added, and many others that could be adduced, discuss the particular authorship of various sublists of Rees articles. This is pretty good indication the topic being "list of articles" is notable in itself, that transwiki would be mistaken, and that the list-inclusion criteria might even be added to by saying "articles have either 15 columns or notable mention in RS", which would add shorter articles to the list such as "Architecture", "Armour", "Botany", "Ceres", "Company", etc. JJB 00:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * This article has been cited at Village_pump_(policy) as an article on a topic that is not notable in itself but which should be kept because it is a spinout of another article and so only need follow content guidelines. Do people here think that this article would fail notability tests? In particular are there secondary sources that specifically talk about the topic of the article which is the contents list for the cyclopaedia? I notice in the lead these statements cited to secondary sources that seem relevant
 * The Cyclopædia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature is an important 19th-century British encyclopædia
 * Scientific theorising about the atomic system, geological succession, and earth origins; natural history (botany, entomology, ornithology and zoology); and developments in technology, particularly in textiles manufacture, are all reflected in the Cyclopædia
 * Serially published 1802-1820, the Cyclopædia was criticised for its idiosyncratic topic selection and alphabetisation standards.
 * In 1820, Philosophical Magazine analysed the work's contents by half-volume publication dates, as proper priority had not been given to serially published scientific discoveries (this seems to be the main source)
 * I would be interested in whether people think do these support notability of the contents list? Or is this a good example of something that is kept as an article but is not notable? Dmcq (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence ("This article has been cited") is Dmcq's interpretation: the only comment Dmcq links says nothing such, nor do I believe a diff could be found supporting Dmcq's interpretation from the prior conversation it summarizes. My analysis favoring spinout notability here is above. JJB 03:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You said *We do have an AFD test case now, though, initiated by User:KoshVorlon, at Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia. This article and its main topic Rees's Cyclopædia are an excellent example of abandoned, poorly wikified spinout practice that rings most of the changes in the discussion above; a move is certainly indicated, and a merge is not impossible. The AFD followed a citation at NORN and would likely illustrate many of the points already discussed."
 * You said *We do have an AFD test case now, though, initiated by User:KoshVorlon, at Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia. This article and its main topic Rees's Cyclopædia are an excellent example of abandoned, poorly wikified spinout practice that rings most of the changes in the discussion above; a move is certainly indicated, and a merge is not impossible. The AFD followed a citation at NORN and would likely illustrate many of the points already discussed."


 * Above at Related discussion I see you have stuck a paragraph which I don't really understand and can't see the point of. And the title has been changed to include 'List' which muddies the waters further. Can't you just make things shorter and more clear please? What was the point of mentioning this ongoing AfD anyway, an AfD which kept an article which wouldn't normally pass notability but did because it was a spinout is all that is needed. That would demonstrate that there is a real point to your putting that bit into WP:SS saying notability is not required for spinout articles.


 * Since you are saying now you do not think thi is a suitable case to show your point I think we should just leave the good folk here alone. The discussion at VPP is already TLDR without inflicting it on unrelated areas. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Your interpretation that I think this is "not notable in itself" is the first mistake: I never said this article was nonnotable. (2) I was going to thank you for refactoring, but your collapse header makes an additional mistake. I did in fact say it was a test case for what I said it was for (which was not that this was nonnotable, but that it was ambiguous to editors, and one of a class of articles that are handled in diverse ways by diverse editors). (3) If you want to understand "Related discussion", be specific about what you need; it has several points that speak for themselves; but a key point is in (2) above. Since you have misunderstood me repeatedly and also admitted not understanding me, it might be best not to continue guessing what I say until you get it. (4) The move was agreed to, unobjected, policy-based, advertised, and reversible. (5) The reason I mentioned it at VPP is that I see that discussion covering a large class of articles and you believe that none of those subclasses (lists, notable subtopics, or nonnotable subtopics) necessitate changing the summary guideline. Thus this "test case" (by my definition) is a good example of seeing how editors interact with their varying approaches, and that interaction is proceeding fruitfully. The counterexample you are demanding as a "test case" appears to me logically impossible given your definitions, but I haven't convinced you of that yet. Beyond that on this question, please return to the other discussions. (6) You repeat the mistake in (2) when you say I don't think thi is a suitable case. (7) VPP may be TLDR but, like this AFD, is yielding fruit and understanding for participants. However, things get TLDR (as here) when I believe comments suggest I should simultaneously correct 3 misinterpretations, answer 3 implied questions, and respond to one TLDR charge. JJB 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Each of these points supports the concept that Rees' work is notable, and there's no question on that. But we still have no reason why to list out the article within it (full or partial) as part of en.wiki's coverage. Yes, it is important to talk about the broadness of topics (which can be done in the main article) and those that contributed to it (which can be done in the main article).  Wikisource can be used to replicate the work's content.  Unless there is some notice or importance to the longest articles in the work, it is trainspotting and not an appropriate spinout. --M ASEM  (t) 05:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe this collapse header is mistaken as described within. JJB 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in looking at this if it is notable. Only an article that is not notable that passes AfD would make a reasonable case in the other discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in looking at this if it is notable. Only an article that is not notable that passes AfD would make a reasonable case in the other discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove from wikipedia - Delete or transwiki off. The lack of a index in the Cyclopaedia may be a adequately referenced conundrum, but the dicussion of the topics it covers is the interest not the actual list. It is not for us to create one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have read the above observations with interest. The original list was compiled for the Rees Project's 1987 grant application, and I have added the contributor's details. It can be checked against the online scans of the volumes. I began to expand my original 2004 Rees's Cyclopaedia article this year on my discovery that the majority of the contributors now had WP articles, and that both editions of Rees had been fully digitised, so readily available online. FYI I am just now working through the list of contributors adding details about their Rees involvement where the information is available. I am about 2/3 through. See James Thomson I propose adding to Wikisource transcripts of the various reviews of Rees, mentioned in the main article, and also to expand the section about the American edition when I have the information.


 * This list of articles could be expanded to include shorter ones if editors could be found to work from the digitised version.
 * I have an open mind about whether the list should be transwikied, but hope the data is not lost, since IMHO is is of use to readers, as its the nearest thing to an index of Rees we so far have, bearing in  mind the problems of finding material in the original.
 * I am very pleased with the latest version of the list, with the introduction and links and thank everyone involved in doing it. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no OR in stating that a certain article in the work exceeded a number of columbs. But it is OR to that that is an important criteria to develop a list on.  Length == quality, and if we go off some critical articles on WP's policies, we'd be saying that Pokemon is more important than WWII (for example).  The work is clearly out off copyright so there's a home in a sister wiki project, but the list here is not appropriate.  One can fairly make a summary of the range of articles covers, the sizes of such articles, and the various contributors as a summation of the work. --M ASEM  (t) 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I consider the list encyclopedic, and suggested its creation separately from Rees's Cyclopaedia for the usual reasons of relieving a longish article of a long related list. The material is of scholarly interest, certainly, and will be more valuable here and wikified than anywhere else. The list is selective and was designed with WP:LSC in mind. Importantly, I don't think WP:NOR applies here at all: where is anything that "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"? Please can we not use "original research" in a loose and discouraging fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In particular, WP:CALC explicitly says that routine calculations are not original research. Computing the column-length of an article in a book is surely a routine calculation. Dricherby (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Charles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:38, 27 May 2012 (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.