Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Oakland, California

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. Sandstein 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Oakland, California[edit]

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

The vast majority of entries in this list have no articles on the book, no articles on the authors, and no independent secondary source. Where any content is sourced, it's usually WP:PRIMARY. This article is a novel synthesis form primary sources. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Falls under Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Its also worth noting that most (but not all) of the books are not notable enough themselves to have an article and neither are the authors of the books. And an even stronger argument to delete is this list fails WP:V. Without any sources, how do we know what these books are about? Looks like somebody did original research.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletion rationale seems to be an issue with the bibliography format of article, which is distinct type of list article. The same arguments could be applied to most of the pages in Category:Wikipedia bibliographies. It's standard for this sort of list to include more than just notable titles or works by notable authors. The inclusion criteria could be tightened, the list pruned, and secondary sources added, but these don't seem like reasons for deletion in such a case. It's unfortunate we don't have more guidelines set out for this sort of article, since they are indeed unusual animals. I wouldn't be opposed to moving them into projectspace, even, but that's a separate conversation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i was surprised, at first, at these bibliographical list articles. it seemed they were saying a whole bunch of nonnotable books deserved an article. that does seem odd. i just thought of another way to look at it. see it as a "further reading" section on the topic, just expanded and set into its own article, for topics that have a large number of scholarly and other works about them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:PAG that supports indiscriminate lists of documents that are, in the main, never going to be usable as WP:RS? This might be a job for Wikibooks, but not Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't indiscriminate except insofar as most of our bibliography articles are indiscriminate (e.g. not limited to notable items). It's a list of works about Oakland, California. Are you saying that's not a notable topic? Or that it's too broad/narrow of a topic to be useful (such that the actual content of the list doesn't come into play)? Or is it that the list needs cleanup (i.e. that it needs to be pruned, sources added, a tighter inclusion criteria, etc.)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Also, the guideline is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and a lack of sources or verifibility for almost all of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Effectively a library catalog. Fails IINFO. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to reiterate that, again, the reasons given for deletion seem to take issue with the legitimacy of the bibliography list format in general rather than this topic in particular. There's no question that there are many works about the history of Oakland, and there are many history books that themselves have bibliographies treating this topic as a group. If the issue is that it needs a more stringent inclusion criteria or more sources, that's cleanup. I don't see people doubting that this is notable. Rather, the issues seem to be about WP:NOT -- issues that would apply to most of the bibliography lists we have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some other bibliography with a broader scope. I get what you mean, Rhododendrites, but it this particular bib is still non-notable. It fails WP:BIB#Notability of bibliography articles, itself based on LISTN. Try to find a bibliography of Oakland outside of Wikipedia that isn't a WP:MIRROR or just the bibliography of a specific essay about Oakland. What we really need is a Bibliography of California which for some reason doesn't exist despite the fact that we have a Bibliography of Los Angeles and a Bibliography of the Sierra Nevada. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you lumping books about Oakland in with just the bibliography of a specific essay about Oakland? One of the examples of WP:BIB points to a book about fly fishing because "Source contains a comprehensive bibliography of fly fishing related books." In a way, whether or not a bibliography has been treated as a group is a question of whether a subject has been the primary subject of substantial works, since a respectable nonfiction book about a subject is going to contain a bibliography about that subject. There are bibliographies in many of the very works listed in this bibliography, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the list is indiscriminate. I removed a number of self-published books, for example. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE see WP:NOTCATALOGUE. House1090 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Most of the entries have no articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2018 (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.