Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1974 Macropædia articles

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 fishhead64 05:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1974 Macropædia articles

While the description of the Macropaedia at the top does give some context, a complete list of the encyclopedia's content is WP:NOT#IINFO as it's just the contents of the book in statistical form. FrozenPurpleCube 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related page for the 2007 edition:

because, well, the same standard applies. FrozenPurpleCube 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also original research and a possible copyvio. MER-C 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rationale. Thank you for bringing these articles to AfD, since such articles should be considered scrupulously, especially when there is a hint of WP:NOR and copyvio. However, I feel that deletion is not justified, for the following reasons:

The contents of the Macropædia provide insight into the topics that the Encyclopædia Britannica considers to be the hallmark topics of science, history and culture. Several Wikipedians have praised the utility of these lists; see for example the latest entry on Talk:List of 2007 Macropædia articles.

WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here, since it does not mention this category of information. Moreover, these articles are not merely database dumps, but place the information in context, with links to other, more explanatory articles.

These article are not original research, unless looking up the number of pages or the year of references is. If that were deletion-worthy, a vast number of other WP articles would have to be changed; how often do we read something like, "X published a 370-page book in 1976"? If the consensus is that page numbers and year references are OR, I could delete the offending columns from the tables.

These articles are not copyvio, per this memo. Facts cannot be copyrighted, a principle that allows Tables of Contents to be copied, as we often see on amazon.com and elsewhere. The titles of these articles are drawn only from the Macropædia's Tables of Contents.

I hope that these answers address all of your concerns. Thank you for your carefulness in maintaining Wikipedia's quality, Willow 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your position at best explains a discussion of the Macropaedia itself, (which isn't disputed, an article on that is fine) not an article that simply lists its contents. And if you look at WP:NOT#IINFO, I'd say number 9 applies, namely statistics. FrozenPurpleCube 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Willow, as long as it is not a copyvio. Does not appear to be OR, and is about a notable reference work.Useful to compare extent of coverage of different encyclopedias. Edison 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willow and Edison. The choice of topics in Macropædia has a precise cultural significance and conveys a judgement of value, which influences its many readers. Think of a Wikipedia article listing, say, the contents of the Encyclopédie. Wouldn't that be (more than) acceptable? Stammer 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willow. As for WP:NOT#IINFO, I don't think this is any more stat-heavy than List of British Columbia general elections, or most other lists. I think the point of WP:NOT#IINFO is to object to the style of statistics, rather than their content. Its main rationale is that statistics "may be confusing...and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles". Following from this, the policy suggests, not deletion, but "sufficient explanatory text" and "Infoboxes or tables". I believe this list complies with these suggestions quite well, being itself in a table, and being accompanied by a brief description of the Macropedia. If this discussion turns sour anyways, at least transfer the 1974 list to my userspace prior to erasing it, so that I might have something to show for all that. It was really quite a bit of typing. Cheers! Geuiwogbil 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Wikipedia: space, not encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:32, 21 April 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.