Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Who in Tudor England 1485-1603


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's Who in Tudor England 1485-1603
This is a strange article, explicitly labelled as the index/contents listing of a book published in 1990. I have no doubt that a list of significant people in Tudor England is both useful and appropriate for wikipedia, but I am unsure about the acceptability of an article which is simply the contents listing of a book which is still in copyright. Is it a copyvio? Are there other policies it falls foul of? I'm unsure, so I make this nomination without a recommendation either way (I may make a recommendation later on if some persuades me in one direction or the other). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wjhonson's point that an index is a "minor extract". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) However, more work is need to make it into a useful list, because it lacks annotations: it should say something like "Edward Smith, papist heretic from Glossop; Joe Smith, online mead merchant from Much Hadham" rather than just "Edward Smith; Joe Smith"). Quite a few of the liks point to dab pages, and it may be unclear which (if any) of the names on the dab pages is the right one. Coukd this perhaps be best considered as a very long stub? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK,I will recommend a 'strong keep on the basis of info provided below, particularly
 * Hmm, interesting one. Not many redlinks here - it actually functions as a pretty good index within wikipedia on a topic of quite wide interest. Perhaps it could be developed along those lines and the references to the book phased out? I don't think a list of names could be a copyvio. It looks as if it could be useful, so I'm saying keep. BTLizard 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is the concept of compilation copyright, which as I understand is both a bit fuzzy and rather weak, but that's what I had in mind when suggesting a possible copyvio. However, it sems to me that if the book index is used as one of the sources, rather than being drectly reproduced, we should be okay.
 * Comment This page has a lot of promise. In addition to identifying who the names are, I'd suggest adding dates (since the list is largely ordered by date). A new title would let us decouple the list from the book, since it would be useful to be able to add other names to the list. --Bpmullins 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If it is not a copvio, it would be useful in sorting out the people of that era. Edison 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and improve, If not copyvio, we need more of this and less of webcomics and video games. L0b0t 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Interesting article. May need a rewrite, but I've access to some good sources. --SunStar Net 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with BrownHairedGirl's comments on providing context on the individuals, and reorganising into common professions rather than page numbers --Steve 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * and Rename to Who's who in Tudor England per Bpmullins's comment --Steve 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename as per Bpmullins via Steve. Useful and IMO pretty much in Wikipedia's spirit. However, be prepared for a storm of new articles from "Who's who in Pericles' Athens" to "Who's who in German concentration camps". Stammer 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't a better title be "List of notable people in Tudor England"? That seems to be the usual format for lists  in wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree on "List of notable people in Tudor England" . There are already dozens of such "notable people" lists. Stammer 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ah I've been away. Yes an index is not a copyvio by nature, that's why I did it.  Indexes are protected as "minor extracts", which is why a library can cite all the chapter headings of a work in its catalog by the way.  The extract doesn't go "to the heart" of the work, and doesn't copy an inordinate amount of detail. Also the distinction here, vs Stammer's comment just above is that this is an actual work published, whereas Stammer's examples aren't.  Not that I'd be opposed to "Who's who in German concentration camps" but the majority of course would probably fail Notability.  Anyway, I'd glad the community decided to keep. Wjhonson 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh and by the way if anyone wants to annotate it, go right ahead :) Rearrange it, do what you want.  It was just a way to get a useful index started, on a topic on which I'm particularly interested. Wjhonson 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If, as you appear to argue, the legitimacy of the article depends on it originating from a published work, doesn't editing the list amount to original research? Stammer 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No more than any other article, provided that the additional info is also sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * keep. delete. WP is not an index for other written work.  Such list trivia, where it belongs, is surely better represented by a category.  But as an article about the work published in 1990, this is fine.  90% of content should go, though.   Un  focused  16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh to the comments about the name of the article, see Who's Who in British History. My original intent would be that there would be an article on each book, describing what's in the book basically.  But since I don't own any of the other volumes, I'll go with the consensus if someone wants to rename the article. Wjhonson 07:24, 2 November 2006 (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.