Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bagpipe books

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bagpipe books[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)

Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. It's a grab bag of tutorials, how-to guides, music, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability guideline for lists says that the items in the list should have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This list does not cite any sources that discuss these books as a group or set. Indeed, the talk page contains a discussion about if the article needs a reference section or not, which concludes with, "I [. . .] don't understand why there's a "references" section when the whole article is a list of books." They seem to have decided that the books serve as their own references, which so far as the title, author, publication info, and the fact that they are about bagpipes is concerned is true, but there is no evidence that NLIST is satisfied - that anyone before Wikipedia has treated these books as a set. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd • SPEAK 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOTCATALOG. I think this has managed to exist for so long just due to being overlooked. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. If it had some well-defined scope that was covered in sources (such as if there was an award for the best 20 Bagpipe books of all time, or bagpipe book of the year award), then and only then would it pass WP:NLIST. Until then it's just a random list of any related book, which fails WP:NOTCATALOG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. Setreis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ye'll nae be liking the skirl o'the pipes, then. Och, aw'a wi' ye. >MinorProphet (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disenfranchise the Sassenachs. Their wee minds cannae handle it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2021 (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.