Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list


 * 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. NawlinWiki 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Singerman list

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't follow a word of this article; it may be a hoax, I simply don't understand its meaning. It's certainly unsourced and doesn't assert its notability. Porcupine (prickle me!) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: Very poorly written stub. No sources.  Really, cannot understand the article. - Rjd0060 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Page now seems to meet WP:STUB. - Rjd0060 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/ Merge . Robert Singerman wrote ANTISEMITIC PROPAGANDA: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RESEARCH GUIDE which catalogues antisemitic works. 'Singerman' seems to be used fairly commonly to refer to this work, e.g. here. May be better to merge into Robert Singerman and redirect. It clearly is not a hoax.--Michig 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it now justifies a separate article, so Keep.--Michig 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Merge /Keep Best to merge and redirect, I think. I think it could be okay to Keep as well, but the article clearly needs renaming and some work to show that this catalog system is notable in its own right. Wstaffor 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The latest changes seem to merit a Keep to me. Wstaffor  talk 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - To me the meaning of this article is fairly clear, it's a cataloguing system for antisemitic publications. One could compare it to the Messier catalogue for astronomical objects, or the Köchel catalogue for works of Mozart. However, those two are widely used within the academic fields, there is less evidence of this catalouging system being used, other than a statement saying it's use is 'extensive' among dealers. A cleanup of the article and better sourcing is required. Darksun 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep Merge - I also wonder if it overstates its usage. I've tidied it a little to make the intro clearer. Gordonofcartoon 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge a separate article for this seems excessive in the absence of widespread use. thee are hundreds of these bibliographic numbering systems. Thisis not even the only one of his, there is also "Judaica Americana: A Bibliography of Publications to 1990, complied by Robert Singerman, which identifies 6512 "American publications of Jewish interest" DGG (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is only a stub. Also, this in fact is what's used by any professional rare book dealer who wishes to identify an item. ISBN numbers do not exist for 19th and early 20th century books. So if you say "I want Singerman 0123", the professionaql knows exactly what you are talking about. It's roughly equivalent to an ISBN number - and used for early books when the ISBN System was not yet invented. Ludvikus 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed substantially the  , and its name, to "Singerman list." Ludvikus 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly not a hoax. Whilst I subscribe to none of the views contained in the subject matter. This encyclopaedia is about recording "facts" and thus these facts should remain. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth of it isn't in doubt: the issue is whether it's sufficiently notable in itself to be a separate topic from its creator. Gordonofcartoon 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be useful reference for the Anti-Semitism related articles. Appears to be notable Alex Bakharev 03:59, 26 September 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.