Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

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. Star Mississippi 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A weird bibliography sourced to a single paper from the SSRN that itself says it will be copied to Wikipedia. A single paper does prove it meets WP:NLIST, all of the entries fail WP:GNG themselves, and as a whole, it reeks of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Kept at the last discussion with one vote which argued that the nominator didn't put forth a reason for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Companies, Lists, and United States of America. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not sure if unannotated bibliography entries constitute a copyright violation, but this is a copy-paste of [1]. Invalid as an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A previous version of this was speedy deleted and restored, see [2]. Maybe not a copyvio, but I'm baffled why someone would think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this. A small selection of relevant publications is acceptable at Freddie_Mac#Further_reading or a similar section of Fannie_Mae, maybe even link to this source but don't copy it all in! Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not in violation of copyright. It was uploaded to Wikipedia by the copyright holder. I would love this paper in the "Further reading" section of the two companies in question, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesnt seem like the appropriate place for a list like this and I dont see a public interest in this list. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valiaveetil (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for your vote, but you really need to add an actual reason to be considered. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anything sourced essentially from a single source is plagiarism in violation of academic ethics and of copyright in violation of our rules at WP:COPYVIO and WP:OR. See also WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2023 (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.