Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulfinch's Mythology

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulfinch's Mythology[edit]

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

This is an unsourced, cobbled toghter glorified table of contents for a book. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia isn't for glorified tables of contents. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without the table of contents (which I've removed), it's an article on a notable book. DS (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, in that form it's a two line stub with no sources and no assertion of notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution is to tag the article as needing more detail, some kind of link to a wikipedia noTOC policy, and then wait. deleting the whole thing is less good of a solution. there are dozens of secondary source commentaries on Bulfinch's mythology, im sure a fine article can be written about it based on them alone. Decora (talk)

as for 'no TOC' policy:

Articles with tables of contents:

Articles full of trivia with no explanation of significance:

etc etc etc.

Decora (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable work by a notable author. I'm not certain that the brutal trimming was really called for here; marking it as an article under development might have been more reasonable. Risker (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The Age of Fable, better known as Bulfinch's Mythology, written by Thomas Bulfinch (1796-1867) and first published in 1855, has long been a standard fixture in American homes, schools, and libraries. New editions still appear frequently." M. Cleary, "Miscuit Utile Dulci: Bulfinch's Mythology as a Pedagogical Prototype", The Classical World 78:591 (copy available at the author's website, here). This classic work is obviously notable, and there's plenty of resources available on which to base an article about this work and its long influence. [1][2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! What's more *** than someone whose Greek mythology is learned from Bulfinch? Someone who's never heard of Bulfinch! I agree that the current article is inane.--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Age of Fable or Bulfinch's Mythology is notable as Hades, but neither a table of contents nor the stub, and definitely not deletion--do it any justice; I'm sure this can be fixed in a week, start here just to get a grasp of its significance. Point made, nominator, and yeah yeah, Wikipedia is not for cleanup, but now that we're all here, let's get suggestions on how to improve it. Mandsford 23:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn My bad entirely. I saw the version before the "brutal trimming" and clicked AfD before I did my customary search. I know better than to do that, and fully deserve the chewing out I received here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:51, 12 February 2011 (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.