Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about ballroom dancing

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 merge to Ballroom dancing. T. Canens (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about ballroom dancing[edit]

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

The way I read WP:LIST, a list should contain items with wikilinks--in the case of a list of books, those items should be notable books. That some of the books in this example are written by notable authors is not enough.

All other lists that I'm aware of, inside articles and as independent articles, work that way--think of lists of buildings, alumni, etc. I am interested to see if the community reads common practice and the guideline in WP:LIST the way I do. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Drmies that, as a general proposition, the entries in a list should be wikilinks to articles about notable topics. List of vegetable oils is the example cited in the guideline, and a large majority of the entries are blue links to articles about the various oils. There are a small minority of red links where articles have not yet been created, and these red links are a useful hint to interested editors that the encyclopedia is not finished and articles on these oils are needed. However, we now have no articles on notable books on ballroom dancing. This list should be deleted and userfied for the original author, to serve as a guide for writing some of those articles. Once we have a few, this list can be recreated. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I went to Matt Barber to see if any of his books were notable and could be added to the list (in which case my beautiful AfD would be quashed immediately), and ended up nominating it for deletion. Certainly there is no prejudice against recreation and, Cullen, a little birdy told me at a party that you were quite the dancer in your day. Perhaps you can write this book for us?
  BTW, one of the functions I have in mind for this (or another) AfD is as jurisprudence for future AfDs and for the editing of such articles. Your point on a decent article with a majority of blue links, and a minority serving as an invitation, is well taken. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP does not follow strict precedent, which is a good thing considering that the results of AfD are sometimes very close to random. A considerable number of very similar decisions here does show general consensus, (cf. WP:COMMON) but not an individual AfD. The jurisprudence approach requires judges with authority , and no decision about wp content can have that sort of authority. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per nom. As of now none of the listed books have articles. If some of these article are created (and successfully maintained), then this article could be recreated as a valid list. ... discospinster _talk 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no requirement that such list entries be themselves notable. While it's an often-invoked option for some list articles that tend to acquire non-notable fan entries (e.g., List of MMORPGs), there is no blanket requirement that any or all list entries be themselves notable. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what should be our rationale for inclusion? Mere existence? A cite from WP:LIST: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." The first "include" here can obviously be read in a non-exclusive way, and that's the way you would read it, I imagine, but it does follow that there is a minimum of at least one notable entry (and that should be the book, not the author). Is one enough? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the criterion for inclusion should be either a notable book, or a major book by a notable author. It will be rather easy to show notability for many of the books listed here and probably many others on the subject also, for the criteria in WP:BOOK merely requires substantial coverage from third party reliable sources--and book reviews are an example of such sources. If it is really desired to have articles for every book having two or more independent reviews, it is a remarkably formulaic thing to write them, but because of the breath of the criteria it is normally preferable to write the article about the author & merge the books into it, as there will generally be potential for expansion. But I am not that much of a splitter--or that much of an inclusionist, if inclusionist means making as many articles as possible. (Incidentally, if it were possible to find a bibliography of books about ballroom dancing, that would show the notability of the topic itself, not just the list & in fact there is at least one separately published one, [1]. besides what may be in journals and doctoral theses.) Obviously work should be done on this to include the reviews as references both here or in the articles about the authors, BTW, the normal criterion for lists of notable things is not having a wp article, but having an article or being qualified to have one if it has not yet been written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Keep There are substantial bibliographies such as Bibliography of Dancing and Bibliographic Guide to Dance. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge WP:Not a directory. While useful to someone wanting to read a book on ballroom dancing, this just doesn't seem like something that ~~belongs~~ should stand alone in an encyclopedia. Possible to add it to the bottom of Ballroom dancing itself? Wolfview (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR, lists of books are unnecessary unless the books themselves are notable. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources on lidos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books on bullying, etc. There is also the option of finding the appropriate WikiProject (WikiProject Dance?) and putting it over there, ie. in project space rather than article space, as a resource list, as in this AfD. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Ballroom dancing. This material may not be appropriate as its own article, but it could be used to reference the Ballroom dancing article. Perhaps this could be a "Further reading" section in the main article. Them From Space 09:01, 18 July 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.