Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Railway 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 of the debate was no consensus for deletion or merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Railway Bibliography

Just a list of books, possibly cut-and-paste from an electronic catalogue. Tagged for wikify and clean-up, which I've made a start on, but seems unlikely it could ever develop into anything encyclopedic.➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This actually looks like it might have been meant as references for History of rail transport in Ireland that got spun off because the list became quite large. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. San Saba 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is simply not the place for bibliographies, even comprehensive ones. Eusebeus 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Bibliographies certainly are encyclopedic... most if not all print encyclopedias include extensive bibliographies, sometimes even in their own volumes. The closest encyclopedia to me right now, Man, Myth & Magic, has a full 50 pages of bibliography in volume 24. For those saying bibliographies don't belong in an encyclopedia, which encyclopedia have you been using? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's simply a gross inaccuracy. Please point me to an encyclopedia that consists of ehxaustive bibliographies. True, encyclopedias point to principal works cited or important to the subject at hand, but they are not exhaustive repositories for sources pertaining to a subject. For example, a comprehensive bibliography of Marxism runs to many hundreds of pages (including propaganda and "motivated" articles it could extend easily to thousands). Please direct me to this encyclopedic reference you have found that has 500 pages devoted to nothing but books and articles on Marxism. You have conflated directed references with exhaustive bibliography. Eusebeus 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per above, although I am still unsure. -- ReyBrujo 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Er, no. Delete, or merge into whatever article it is a Bibliography of. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While a bibliography is certainly encyclopedic, this one is useless... It's supposed to be used as reference for History of rail transport in Ireland but there is no citation of any of the books listed. The books used as references in History of rail transport in Ireland should be listed as in Wikipedia:Citing_sources and that list deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam67fr (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge into History of rail transport in Ireland. Wikipedia is not a list of reference works, any more than it's a collection of external links. Sources should be cited in the articles that draw on them; useful books that are not cited should be listed in the relevant articles as "further reading"; everything else is no different from linkspam and should be deleted accordingly. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge the refs used in the main article. Moving a list of refs into the article namespace just screams WP:NOT to me, even if the mother article is too long. --Eivind^t@c 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Starblind; also unsure (like ReyBrujo). Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:59, 6 May 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.