Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-printed books

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. but fix the copyright issues by following Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves v/r - T P 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-printed books

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A content fork and copyright violation of List of best-selling books: unattributed partial copy from that page (most of the content and 44 of the 45 sources are taken straight from there), with the intention of adding a dozen or so other books. I have tried to explain at Talk:List of best-selling books#List of most-printed books why this would be a bad idea, with two lists which will start diverging and contradicting each other, or otherwise with double the maintenance. A new section on the existing page, or alternatively a new article with only those books excluded currently from the best-selling list, would be a much better solution. Further discussion at the article talk page, a third opinion, more input, would have been the right approach here, not the "I'll do it anyway" approach shown here. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think this is a matter best resolved in AFD. Whilst I respect the reasons why it is desired to restrict List of best-selling books to those for which there are verfiable sales figures, which mostly means books in copyright for which the publishers have released audited figures, that is a set of constraints which actually excludes some of the most read and in some cases influential books in history such as the Bible, the Thoughts of Chairman Mao, and so forth. That wider topic is notable, the nominator is arguing it is distinct from the narrower definition of a best-seller and therefore cannot simply be dismissed as a fork, and whilst there are problems in estimating the actual figures or verifying the claims that is not fatal to the article. Plenty of people have attempted to produce estimates and these may be reliable sources even if we cannot possibly get at a precise number of copies of the Bible produced over the course of nearly two millennia, to use the most extreme case. --AJHingston (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK, this is clearly "an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." and so deletion is not an appropriate remedy here. Warden (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Apart from the fact that it is a copyright violation and that there is nothing to merge? This is an attempt to end dispute resolution through creation, not through deletion. Fram (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The real issue here is that the list of best-selling books does not include notable cases like the Bible and we ought to have a place for information about such cases. Getting this done is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. When the matter is properly resolved and consensus achieved, then any loose ends like the contribution history and attributions can be sorted out by history merger and the like. Warden (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And discussion about where and how best to place these cases was ongoing. Creating a content fork during the discussion is not the way to get this done. 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      - If you define 'best-selling' as a colloquial term which includes 'most-printed', then you can allow figures for these types of excluded books to go on the List of best-selling books. I've seen examples of this and can list a few in case this is needed. If the one list must be exclusionary and its name isn't likely to be changed by consensus to make it non-exclusionary, then I don't think there is justification to delete this page because it will contain new content that wouldn't be found elsewhere. Additionally, if 'best-selling' means only books that were sold, then 'most-printed' is a very different topic from the main list. The sales figures for most books must logically must be the bottom limit for the number printed for books with mostly hard-copies sold, which probably includes most books on this list.
      - I don't know how to merge the histories or attribute the source in the way it seems I'm supposed to, but if that is the only problem I don't see any reason for it to be deleted if someone would be willing to do some sort of history merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanib (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to KEEP this list - it could have some value. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LISTPURP and Colonel Warden above. The list may be a valuable information source. Also, they give out the Bible free so this seems like a good list to complement, rather than contradict, the book profits list mentioned in the nom. Disputes over which reliable sources to use can be worked out on the article talk page. The two lists have started to diverge becuse they are two different lists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: The "keep" opinions should address how the copyright problem (no attribution for the copypasted content) should be solved in a way that complies with our licensing requirements. Sandstein 07:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Colonel Warden. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy if sources can be found. Shii (tock) 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. - Presidentman talk • contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia addresses copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves says how the copyright problem (no attribution for the copypasted content) should be solved in a way that complies with our licensing requirements. I endorse these for this article in addition to iVoting keep above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden and Uzma Gamal. Cavarrone (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2012 (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.