Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Wilkinson 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 was delete. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but that's not enough in the face of specific consensus to not redirect due to it being an unlikely search term -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Wilkinson bibliography[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)

As per WP:SPINOUT this page is not necessary for size reasons as the main article Alec Wilkinson is only 4k bytes WP:SIZERULE is a long way away from being met. The main article is quite possibly not notable either. This bibliography is not long enough to warrant a separate article. I have already removed the newspaper articles and essays that do not meet the goals of WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely not necessary to split this off from main article, and not a sensible search term/redirect either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Alec Wilkinson - there is no need for a separate article on this author's list of books. Vorbee (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in that article and was already a redirect but to be honest I can't see anyone looking specifically for this guy's bibliography so I think no real need for a redirect. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alec Wilkinson. Not necessary to spin out. Not merge because the content is already there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retain~~Keep - the journal articles that I originally had in this bibliography (but which have been removed again by another editor) mean that it is not a one-for-one duplication of the Publications section of the main Alec Wilkinson page. I only created a separate bibliography because another editor removed the journal articles from the main page. Catch-22. Sunwin1960 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With rare exception, we don't include non-major works in these lists, given Wikipedia is not a CV. If it's not appropriate for the main article it's probably not appropriate for the bibliography. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY We include books and other entries such as articles in academic journals. The entries that were removed failed the goals so there is no catch 22 situation because they should never have been included in the first place. Catch 22 refers to a situation where there are contradictory rules, if there had been a rule that BIBLIOGRAPHY articles are allowed so long as there are more than 10 entries including essays and newspaper articles but a second rule that says essays and newspaper articles are not notable so are not allowed in lists then I would have agreed with you but this isn't the case. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to where exactly in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY it says "we include books and other entries such as articles in academic journals?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been clearer, I should have said as per the link in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Goals. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a fairly strong consensus that the article shouldn't be kept, at the moment, there is a merge/redirect and delete dispute, with specific objections to redirect. Thus further discussions seems beneficial
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not useful as a standalone article, and not worth a merge / redirect. All titles are nn. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 3 September 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.