Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeptic's Library


 * 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. L Faraone  05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic's Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be WP:OR and is failing WP:GNG. The max. 6500 hits (including doubles) on Google are not a show of notability. The Banner talk 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at these other libraries on Wikipedia to study the formatting before expanding this page, are you suggesting they all be deleted?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_important_publications_in_science
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_novels
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishbone_book_list
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Self-help_books
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fiction_employing_parallel_universes
 * If not, please clarify, thanks. Joolzzt (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so it is not effective to compare at all. The Banner talk 23:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is simply a List of Books similar to many other lists found across WP. The WP:OR argument will need to apply to all similar lists. Is this the intent? General notability may be helped by the recent addition of the well cited paragraph following the lede. Frederick Green (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.119.14.128 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 101.119.14.136 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LISTN. This seems to be a list of works arbitrarily selected by the article author. While the individual works are notable, this specific list is not. References are cited in the article, but they do not relate to this specific collection of works. -- 101.119.14.99 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SALAT. Remove Videos and Podcasts section and rename List of books about skepticism or List of publications important to skepticism or other suitable "List of..." title. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A rename to List of publications important to skepticism would require sources showing the works are "important," so I'm not sure that works. One option would be to split this list into other, less arbitrary lists, such as List of books opposing Creationism. As a general rule, however, works should not be on the list unless there are articles about those works. -- 101.119.14.99 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This utterly random list combines fiction, autobiography, straight (non-sceptical) science and all kinds of other things. It reads like a "my favourite books" list. -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of important publications in skepticism. This is standard naming see Category:Bibliographies by subject in particular the science, and philosophy bibs. There is precedent. Personally I don't think Wikipedia handles big-topic bibliographies well, but if editors want to work on it they should be allowed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who says that, for example, the novel Contact is an "important publication in skepticism"? Or the autobiographical Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!? Surely we would need sources to support the suggestion of importance? -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes everything added to Wikipedia must comply with WP:NOTE. Beyond that, editors have control over what to include or exclude. "Important" is another way of saying "notable" and is superfluous since by definition everything on Wikipedia is already "important/notable". It's up to editors to hash out which notable items should be included in the list. For example 2000 is not a list of everything that happened in 2000, or even a list of everything notable that happened, just those items curated by Wikipedia editors. I think you are correct that certain books could be removed for being non-notable titles, although the path to notability is not simply having a blue link article, things can be notable and not have an article which is a higher standard of notability than inclusion within a separate article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously everything on the list should be notable. We have other lists of books, like List of popular science books on evolution. But a list of important books, like List of important publications in chemistry, also requires evidence of particular importance. So Contact is a notable novel, but not necessarily important to Scepticism. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're both wrong about NOTE. It applies to article creation, not content. Article content must be from RS. RS is not the same as NOTE. Obviously it must be relevant to the topic, IOW on-topic. If a book somehow made it to the list and it's not really relevant, then it should be removed, with an edit summary explaining why. For example, some skeptics have written books on other topics. Those other books wouldn't belong on this list. By deleting that one book, with an edit summary, skeptics who edit the article can determine if that judgment call is correct. Let's take an example. Paul Offit has written a book(s) on vaccination. A non-skeptic might say that's irrelevant to the list, but to any skeptic, it's very relevant, since one of the interests of many skeptics is opposition to the work of anti-vaccinationists, a major meme in alternative medicine, which is also another major topic of relevance to skeptics. So....discuss on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think too broad a definition of "sceptic" is being used here (and the inclusion of novels in the list certainly suggests that no suitably specific selection criterion is being applied). WP:SALAT notes "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." One feasible alternative is to split this list into sublists by topic, and assess those independently. -- 101.119.14.136 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Splitting into topic areas is a good idea, and has already been done. Note that the whole table is sortable by topic area. Of course we could split it further into separate sections with their own sortable tables. That way we'd have several sections with tables, instead of one big table. Would that be preferable? What advantages or disadvantages would such an approach give us?
 * The category areas explicitly denote the relevance of each entry, and each topic area is notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of the books cover multiple areas of skepticism, so I have a general category of 'scientific skepticism' for those. There would be a need for a general page like this even if some books are split onto other pages.Joolzzt (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's also a legitimate general category. There is no need to split this list into multiple pages. That would be absurd. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename List of books about skepticism or similar title. This is a valuable collections of works. Is it perfect? Probably not. It's under development. Rather than blanket delete, fix obvious faults. The huge deletions by IP 101 seem to be closer to vandalism based on personal POV, rather than attempts to improve through discussion and collaboration. Use the talk page and seek to improve rather than break down. Individual entries need not be notable. Notability only applies to article creation, and skepticism is a very notable subject. What is determinative here is if the content is useful to skeptics. Let those uninterested in skepticism stick to fixing formats, spellings, and punctuation. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. A list like this should be listing books with articles (see Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, especially WP:CSC). The edits in question also added many wikilinks, and corrected errors in article titles. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with making such huge deletions. There can be good edits happening at the same time, but it's extremely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and it's much easier to return to the status quo. So make those edits small, with edit summaries, and they may well stick because they are aimed at building and improving, not destroying. As long as this AfD is ongoing, do not blank or otherwise deface the article. Small deletions that are justified by good edit summaries are another matter. Just be constructive. All editors should seek to make this list eligible for inclusion, not sabotage it so it can be deleted. That would be bad faith.
 * I'm well aware that some types of lists, just to be able to manage them and prevent frivolous, promotional, and vandalistic additions, require (an unofficial ad hoc decision by the local editors) that additions be notable enough for their own article, or be accompanied by RS demonstrating their relevance. In this case, the author and title may not obviously demonstrate relevance, so an accompanying blue link about the topic of relevance would be good. If the content is of relevance to alternative medicine, that blue link is what demonstrates why the book is in the list. It would not be necessary for the book or author to have their own blue link. Such a requirement would empty most articles if we had such a requirement, but we don't. This article is in development, and the addition of RS would certainly improve it, so help with that work. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "an unofficial ad hoc decision by the local editors," it's part of the MoS. This list is clearly covered by WP:CSC #1 (#2 and #3 don't apply), and WP:CSC #1 says: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.  This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.  Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment. If this list is to be kept, it should meet (at least) that guideline. In addition, WP:IINFO requires clear inclusion criteria. -- 101.119.15.40 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * #2 does apply, and the very existence of those several possibilities (from notable to not notable) indicates that we're pretty flexible and not nearly as rigid as you propose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just nonsense; WP:CSC #2 does not apply because many books on the list are notable enough to have articles. Case #2 is used for things like lists of minor characters in a movie, which would not be notable enough for an article on their own. I suggest that you read WP:CSC again; it says: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring warnings to IP 101. Since you have a dynamic IP address (four so far) which keeps changing, I'm leaving this warning here where you will be certain to see it. You have, over the objections of others, repeatedly deleted huge amounts of material from the article. You are already at 3RR and will be blocked if you continue. When your edits are controversial, you should not attempt to force your will. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't keep reverting the addition of wikilinks to book articles, and the corrections to misspelled book titles. That's vandalism. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously vandalism was not intended, and real improvements are welcomed. It likely happened when one of your mass deletions was undone. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename per Green Cardamom (who is also right about the difficulties of maintaining such large lists). There are plenty of precedents at Lists of Books and related pages, eg the lists listed at Lists of important publications in science. Inclusion criteria, etc are a separate subject to whether we should keep this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, I think you meant Lists of books. I would have no problems if this article was split up into lists on specific subjects in line with that precedent. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. And someday maybe the list can be split up, but that again is no reason for deletion. Discuss the future of this article after a decision is made about deletion. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to splitting the contents into separate sections, while keeping it as one list, but doesn't the current categorization serve that purpose well? That it's sortable across categories is really nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to List of books about skepticism. Then copy edit the lead accordingly. From here, the list would pass WP:LISTPURP per the many blue links in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. PLEASE don't keep editing the page until a decision is reached. I am happy to edit the page in accordance with the final decision, it is inappropriate to keep changing the page while a decision is pending.  To 101.119.14.128 - the book list is not intended to contain any fiction of straight science books.  I will remove 'Contact', if you tell me of any others then I will remove them.  The list is for books specifically related to skepticism, which may include biographies of famous skeptics but not fiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolzzt (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, policy encourages editors to edit articles while they are at AfD. In particular, there are many books that need wikilinks (several wikilinks were added but later removed). There seems to be a WP:OWN issue here. -- 101.119.15.204 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Split according to the column classifying works as on (or possibly against) Creationism, Religious skepticism, Young Skepticism, alternative medicine, etc. A bibliographic article is potentially encyclopaedic, but this one is trying to do too much at once.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's fairly clear this list is valid. However, a rename or move is legitimate. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (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.