Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Apologetic Works
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Christian Apologetic Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Bibliographies are acceptable as lists, but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare, e.g., List of Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or be deserving of such under WP:BK (most here are not). If we were to redact the list to those which are notable under WP:BK, the list would be relatively short and should probably just be merged into Christian apologetics, etc. Flex (talk|contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you may be right... but, couldn't it be sourced like List of films considered the best ever? gren グレン 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how sourcing would apply here. This is not a list of the most popular works as judged by various polls; it's just a bibliography. Also note that all of the works in that list are worthy of (and already have!) their own page, which is not the case here. What I'm opposing is the creation of lists comprised almost entirely of non-notable books. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia there is an article called List of boy bands. I see no afd for this article and do not expect to. On the other hand, this article is put up for deletion and it contains a list of excellent books defending Christianity the largest worldview in the world. Wikipedia has tons of articles like Polly Pocket yet serious articles/resources like this are put up for deletion. Flex, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for gunning after this article yet not saying a peep about articles like Polly Pocket and List of boy bands. Jazzman123 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason why List of boy bands should be deleted (unless it turns out that most of the articles linked to are not notable), and frankly, I don't see the relevance of bringing it up (unless you mean to say something along the lines of, "The present list is important/useful, whereas that one is much less so," which is clearly POV). As for Polly Pocket, I've never seen that article, and I certainly can't be held responsible for every non-notable article/list that has not been deleted. Therefore, contrary to your exhortation, I am not at all ashamed. This is a collaborative effort after all, so if you come across an article or list you believe does not meet the WP's notability criteria, please discuss it on the talk page, propose it for deletion, or submit it as an AfD. In doing so, you'll help improve the overall quality of the WP. In short, the existence of other non-notable lists/articles has no bearing on the deletion of this list; only conformance to WikiPolicy is at issue, and you have not addressed that issue at all. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia there is an article called List of boy bands. I see no afd for this article and do not expect to. On the other hand, this article is put up for deletion and it contains a list of excellent books defending Christianity the largest worldview in the world. Wikipedia has tons of articles like Polly Pocket yet serious articles/resources like this are put up for deletion. Flex, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for gunning after this article yet not saying a peep about articles like Polly Pocket and List of boy bands. Jazzman123 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how sourcing would apply here. This is not a list of the most popular works as judged by various polls; it's just a bibliography. Also note that all of the works in that list are worthy of (and already have!) their own page, which is not the case here. What I'm opposing is the creation of lists comprised almost entirely of non-notable books. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jazzman123 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? You offer no argument. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I might think differently if the purpose of this list was to guide readers to other articles, the majority of the books listed don't even have articles. The nom's reasoning is solid along with their guidance to relevant policies. janejellyroll 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not convinced by the arguments put forth. WP:BK is a guideline to help decide which books should have their own articles on wikipedia, not which books can be used as sources or mentioned in articles. Also, I'm not sure that the authors of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) considered bibliographic lists when they wrote the selection criteria (judging from how the first paragraph is written). Actually, if you interpret the criteria literally you'll have a hard time writing a bibliographic list on almost any subject. Pax:Vobiscum 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that non-notable books can't be used as sources or mentioned in articles. The point is that stand-alone lists are supposed to be lists of articles or potential articles ("Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." --Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, emphasis mine), and indeed, I think bibliographic lists like the two I mention in my nomination are perfectly allowable under the criteria. This one, however, is nothing more than a list of someone's favorites, which is an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd gladly support a list of notable apologists or notable apologetic works (using the existing standards for notability in each case), but the present list is quite a long way from either of those. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think, however, that a subject bibliography is a so special type of list that the selection criteria can't be applied mechanically (it would make more sense to me to use the inclusion criteria for sources). And just because a list isn't complete does not make it indiscriminate. Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see why a lengthy bibliography of non-notable books is encyclopedic material apart from the context of an article that references it (in which case, WP:RS would certainly apply). If we expanded that list to 100, 500, or 1000 books on the subject, would you still think it belongs? This seems obviously beyond the scope of Wikipedia to me, but I don't see how WP:RS could keep this from happening (assuming there are so many reliable books) if the selection criteria for stand-alone lists are by-passed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't see that the current policies and guidelines are clear on whether or not this kind of "book organization articles" is beyond the scope of wikipedia. I agree with you that the article violates the selection criteria of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), but from what I can see this type of article wasn't foreseen and the guideline could therefor be ignored. I started a discussion on the policy discussion page to see if this is an old issue. Pax:Vobiscum 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see why a lengthy bibliography of non-notable books is encyclopedic material apart from the context of an article that references it (in which case, WP:RS would certainly apply). If we expanded that list to 100, 500, or 1000 books on the subject, would you still think it belongs? This seems obviously beyond the scope of Wikipedia to me, but I don't see how WP:RS could keep this from happening (assuming there are so many reliable books) if the selection criteria for stand-alone lists are by-passed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think, however, that a subject bibliography is a so special type of list that the selection criteria can't be applied mechanically (it would make more sense to me to use the inclusion criteria for sources). And just because a list isn't complete does not make it indiscriminate. Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that non-notable books can't be used as sources or mentioned in articles. The point is that stand-alone lists are supposed to be lists of articles or potential articles ("Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." --Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, emphasis mine), and indeed, I think bibliographic lists like the two I mention in my nomination are perfectly allowable under the criteria. This one, however, is nothing more than a list of someone's favorites, which is an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd gladly support a list of notable apologists or notable apologetic works (using the existing standards for notability in each case), but the present list is quite a long way from either of those. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - A list might be encyclopedic even if the individual items would not be. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) might be violated, but I feel subject bibliographies are probably valuable on their own. Coren 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep List of apologetic works had just survived a deletion attempt,at which the present article was cited repeated as a good example of how such a list could be developed into ones for the specific religions. There is no need to invoke IAR-- This is a careful list, with useful subdivisions, and that's one of the criteria for the guideline at WP:LIST--every statement in that guideline is worded very flexibly: I do not think that is accidental--it was very carefully written to provide for the diversity of possible good lists. . All that's necessary here is for the criteria to be made explicit. There are many subject-specific bibliographical lists. The ones that have good criteria and are carefully maintained are kept when challenged, the inadequate and sloppy ones are not. I am a little troubled by some of the comments about non-notable books; this is by no means an indiscriminate selection of the many thousands of potential inclusions. I hope it was not a reflection of any feeling that the subject is in some way unworthy or unimportant.DGG 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- FYI, I nominated this article and that other one at the same time. That one was relisted and then closed so quickly that I didn't have time to cross-examine. (BTW, that one duplicated the contents of this one until I redacted it and put the {{main}} in there.) Can you give an example or two of bibliographical lists have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or a series of books (e.g., List of Oz books) — is that there are no clear guidelines, and no authority to impose any guidelines someone may come up with, to stop the "enthusiast" (as you termed it here) from making the list into a rather indiscriminate collection of information. In this case, there are easily several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (WP:RS won't help except in extreme cases). Shall we add all of them? IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether, and add "The Wikipedia is not a library catalog." to WP:NOT. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples are in Category:Lists of publications in science. Good ones I have worked on are the ones for Chemistry & Biology. Some less good ones have been challenged and removed. BUT notice that both of these =lists are much more selective, and give significant information about each title included, including the justification for being on the list. The chemistry one has a particularly interesting talk page, where they discuss in an XfD-like manner the individual titles. Comparing them with this, the present one looks rather anemic, and I change my !vote to a Weak Keep. The difference is between an annotated bibliography, which is as worthwhile a work of assembling information as an article, and just a list. This would need improvement, but it can get it, so it becomes an editing question. Butthere is still an immense difference between the present list and the 1712 entries I find for Christian apologetics in the Princeton catalog ( note: the LC heading is, in an ethnocentric fashion , just apologetics.)DGG 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I much prefer List of important publications in chemistry to this one, though the title seems rather subjective. The biggest question is, how do we get from here to there? That is, how does this list become an annotated bibliography? If no editor or editors take the initiative, what do we do with this list, which is woefully incomplete, biased toward evangelicals, and rather snobby in only selecting recently published works -- where's Thomas Aquinas, for instance? Redact, delete, or leave it as is? And how long do we wait to take such action? --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples are in Category:Lists of publications in science. Good ones I have worked on are the ones for Chemistry & Biology. Some less good ones have been challenged and removed. BUT notice that both of these =lists are much more selective, and give significant information about each title included, including the justification for being on the list. The chemistry one has a particularly interesting talk page, where they discuss in an XfD-like manner the individual titles. Comparing them with this, the present one looks rather anemic, and I change my !vote to a Weak Keep. The difference is between an annotated bibliography, which is as worthwhile a work of assembling information as an article, and just a list. This would need improvement, but it can get it, so it becomes an editing question. Butthere is still an immense difference between the present list and the 1712 entries I find for Christian apologetics in the Princeton catalog ( note: the LC heading is, in an ethnocentric fashion , just apologetics.)DGG 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I nominated this article and that other one at the same time. That one was relisted and then closed so quickly that I didn't have time to cross-examine. (BTW, that one duplicated the contents of this one until I redacted it and put the {{main}} in there.) Can you give an example or two of bibliographical lists have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or a series of books (e.g., List of Oz books) — is that there are no clear guidelines, and no authority to impose any guidelines someone may come up with, to stop the "enthusiast" (as you termed it here) from making the list into a rather indiscriminate collection of information. In this case, there are easily several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (WP:RS won't help except in extreme cases). Shall we add all of them? IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether, and add "The Wikipedia is not a library catalog." to WP:NOT. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasoning given by Coren. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To reiterate my response to Coren: Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? (Note that per the above discussion with DGG, I'm open to an annotated version of important works, but criteria for inclusion needs to be established.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of us was arguing "valuable" we were arguing "encyclopedic." I think the burden is on you to show that it isn't encyclopedic, considering all the points that have been brought up in support of this notable topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is certainly not encyclopedic in its present form because it represents such a narrow, subjective collection (evangelical, late twentieth century) with no indication of why the books belong here or why more should or shouldn't be added -- this is all in distinction from, e.g., List of important publications in chemistry which I think certainly belongs. My question is how do we get from this list to one like that one? What if no one steps up to work on this? I daresay we shouldn't leave this list in its present form. So do we redact it down to bare bones, tag it as non-neutral, delete it (my initial preference, but I'm open to other options), or do nothing? --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of us was arguing "valuable" we were arguing "encyclopedic." I think the burden is on you to show that it isn't encyclopedic, considering all the points that have been brought up in support of this notable topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To reiterate my response to Coren: Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? (Note that per the above discussion with DGG, I'm open to an annotated version of important works, but criteria for inclusion needs to be established.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Arbustoo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.