Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by Jacob Neusner

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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by Jacob Neusner[edit]

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

A list of books by an academic who is not particularly notable. There is no annotation and no attempt at sorting. This sort of thing can be found in a library catalogue. Note that it has been through two VfDs. Gee, that brings back memories! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep We keep bibliographies and discographies when they are too extensive to be included in the article. We've kept many that were much smaller. As the author who has written and edited this astounding number of books about the topic, and is generally regarded as the leading figure on the Talmudic period, (for evidence of which, see the article on him. though of course I can find quotations) I would consider him not just particularly notable, but exceptionally notable, and to anyone interested in the subject, even famous. The article on him, and this list, need considerable improvement. For the list, some degree of classification would help, not just a chronological listing. (neither of them make clear the extent to which his views have changed during his career) AfD is not for dealing with articles that need improvement.I'd suggest a speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to keep all the entries on this list. An expert could cull out all the notable works and have a "Selected bibliography" in the Jacob Neusner article. A list of this type is next to useless for readers. It lists all the volumes of a series and it's got books where Neusner is only the editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the list could be better organised (e.g. listing books where he was the editor separately), and perhaps better named Jacob Neusner bibliography (under which it was AfD'd and kept three times), but I don't see a reason to delete. There would also be problems with trimming the list to 'notable' ones as it would be very much a matter of opinion as to which were kept. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for the reasons stated by DGG. Needs organization, but not culling and certainly not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs formatting per WP:MOS-BIBLIO, but I see no reason to delete it as Neuser is obviously notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is our invariable practice on separate bibliography pages to list all the books; that's the very purpose of them. Normally, in fact, we list all the articles and book chapters as well. I have sometimes suggested not including book reviews the subject has written and other equally minor publications, but I've usually lost those arguments. Selected bibliographies have been challenged as NOR. On the other hand, when for an ordinarily notable academic we place a bibliographic section in an article, we are more selective: we still always include all the books, listing separately the ones where the person is an editor, but only selected articles (usually selected objectively, as the ones with the highest number of citations--or sometimes the most recent), and none of the minor material. "Editor" can mean a variety of things--all the way from editor of a text with very elaborate commentary on the one hand, to editor of a collection who has selected the contributors and written an extensive forward & some of the articles, all the way down to someone who has just written a small amount of introductory material for a publisher's collection, or even just assembled it for the publisher. In a detailed scholarly bibliography, the exact amount of the person's contributions will be specified; library catalogers often just take it as presented.

But Alan is correct that it could be condensed a little: in addition to the factors specified by others, many of his works are works in series , translating and analyzing the successive parts of a major work like the Jerusalem Talmud, and they can be grouped. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per DGG. This is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Jacob Neusner article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per all of the above (save the nomination). Is it SNOWing yet? This isn't worth any further waste of the time of the editors on the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per DGG and Northamerica. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (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.