Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsi Gabbard bibliography


 * 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard bibliography

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Redundant forked article of a notable politician. Her article already has this info. None of the books are notable for own article. PROD tag was removed. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the books have a Wikipedia article, all of them are externally linked. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Only two books on this list were actually written by Gabbard herself. The rest aren't even biographies, they're all independently published coloring books or notebooks with her face/name in/on them. It's unclear if these books were even okayed by Gabbard herself. Even if those two books were especially notable, there are only two of them. Does not require a separate page. Benmite (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per nom's rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I was epxecting this to list various op-eds, articles, etc. that Gabbard had written (we know Senator Cotton wrote at least one op-ed for the NYT, it was not an unreasonable expectation). Even then, we should just merge it back into the main article. This has two autobiographies, which is not enough to justify a seperate article on this matter. I see no reason to catalogue the coloring books of Gabbard's picture at all. We do not have Russell M. Nelson bibliography even though he wrote an autobiography and multiple books and medical articles and religious articles, we do not have Dallin H. Oaks bibliography despite multiple scholarly works on law and history, nor so many more. I am unconvinced anyone needs a seperate bibliography article, even those who wrote a whole lot of books (we have a few), but Gabbard is clearly not someone who needs one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have Slavoj Žižek bibliography but he wrote 43 books just in English, plus a huge number of articles, and books in I believe at least 3 other languages, and co-edited or such even more books in English. I am not sure that we need that level of detail or information, but it is clearly more needed than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:LIST and WP:FORK. FWIW, as they say, I'm "not a fan." Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with less than 10 entries (and many of those being coloring books), this is clearly not a plausible stand-alone topic. Nothing needs merging and no need for a redirect to Tulsi_Gabbard. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:04, 23 December 2020 (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.