Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Rothbard bibliography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The arguments to delete are both numerically predominant and stronger from a policy perspective. While we do embrace bibliographies as valid encyclopedia articles, we do not have bibliographies corresponding to every biography of a published author or academic; indeed authors with separate bibliographies are the exception, not the norm. All of which is to say the need for a bibliography needs to be established on a case-by-case basis. The relevant policies are WP:SIZE, WP:DUE, WP:NOTDATABASE, and WP:NOTPROMO. The last two are particularly applicable to prolific academics, for whom exhaustive bibliographies may extend into hundreds of entries. Those arguing to keep this page have not justified the need for either an exhaustive bibliography or a standalone bibliography, and as such I find a clear consensus to delete. I would be willing to provide a userspace or draftspace copy upon request, but I would remind anyone looking to merge content from it of the need to comply with WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard bibliography[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Murray Rothbard bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This recently created article duplicates and adds to the external links in the "Works" section of the article about Murray Rothbard, who was an anarcho-capitalist writer, activist, and heterodox economist. It is unclear what criteria have been used to select the additional external links to the works. The article lacks the independent RS references or commentary that WP:NOTDATABASE recommends, but instead lists some WP:SPS as sources at the end. There have been no discussions on the main Rothbard article's talk page about this mostly duplicative new article. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:LIST and WP:NOTDATABASE. Most important works should go in Murray Rothbard and individual works should be their own article of notable but this appears just indiscriminate. Better suited for Wikidata ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neighborhood Review could use some help with formatting this bibliography - and there are multiple styles of it in Wikipedia. However, per Category:Bibliographies of people, Wikipedia embraces these lists, and we should not delete it. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the list of bibliographies, is there policy guidance about when a separate bibliography page is warranted and when it is ruled out by too much WP:OVERLAP with an existing article? Which WP:LISTCRITERIA ("unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources") would you use to select published works by the subject? Llll5032 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not mine to select. The above author is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies, which has guidelines and a talk page. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the helpful guidelines link. Perhaps its section on author bibliographies may offer some guidance. This bibliography's large WP:OVERLAP with the main article, lack of third-party sources for inclusion, and lack of contextual information are still concerns. I do not know if the article editor has consulted anyone in the WikiProject about these questions. Perhaps this AfD could be brought to the project's attention. Llll5032 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to post your comments on the talk page of that project. I think it's important to know - for you and everyone else - that bibliographical lists are an accepted part of Wikipedia. And like everything else on Wikipedia, some of them land not so perfect and have to be worked on. That doesn't mean they should be deleted, anymore than a stub article should be deleted because it needs work. In fact, if you scroll down that project's page, you will see that many bibliographies attained Feature List status. And selected Feature Lists rotate with Featured Picture for a main page appearance. So, bibliographies of all stages of improvement are accepted on Wikipedia. That project sure doesn't need me to tell them anything. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Maile! The bibliography project doesn't get much love. I appreciate you! Neighborhood Review (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to all for your input so far. As mentioned above, I created the article. My primary interest in editing Wikipedia is bibliographies and formatting references and as Maile pointed out, I try to contribute to the work outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. I believe the bibliography of Murray Rothbard meets all of the criteria laid out by the project in terms of notability and discussion in reliable and academic sources. I also think the concerns raised by Llll5032 and Shushugah are explained by the incomplete nature of the page at the moment. As outlined by the project, a bibliography page is intended to eventually contain all works by that author, and until that point the inclusion of new material will necessarily be relatively indiscriminate. Each work listed in the bibliography does not need to meet individual standards of notability; the notability of the author and their body of work as a whole is the standard which must be met. It is also the case that new, stand-alone bibliographies tend to be duplicative from the listed works on the subject page until the new page reaches such a stage of completion that justifies replacing the listed works on the subject page with a link to the stand-alone list. That seems to be the nature of the bibliography project unfortunately, but if anyone would like to point to an example of a shortcoming relative to a better example on another bibliography page, that would be helpful. Thanks again to everyone interested this discussion! Neighborhood Review (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding, Neighborhood Review. Re your explanation, "As outlined by the project, a bibliography page is intended to eventually contain all works by that author, and until that point the inclusion of new material will necessarily be relatively indiscriminate":
    Can you please quote your source for that sentence and its logic from the Bibliography WikiProject? I don't see where a bibliography is outlined by the project to contain all works (including correspondence, contributions and monographs) and how it could justify relatively indiscriminate choices from all those works. Please cite. Llll5032 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." This passage explains that any published work relevant to the list subject, in this case Murray Rothbard, is not required to meet individual standards of notability. Notability standards here are group-based. Also, "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." This passage points out that the cited sources on the page demonstrate adequate notability for the list as a whole. And to address your last question, when I mentioned the indiscriminate inclusion of new material, I wasn't referring to the selection of material, I am simply saying the order in which new material is added to the page as it grows is not necessarily deliberate. It is understood to be under construction. Neighborhood Review (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those quotes note the topic should be "discussed as a group in reliable sources". But the sources you cited at the end of the article are all self-published sources. Did you consider basing the list on the best reliable sources instead? Llll5032 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an academic, Google Scholar suffices as a fairly complete list of his works. The most important works can be in the biographical article. I see no reason for an attempt at a complete, separate list. To my mind, this person rises no further than most academics on WP, and we just do not attempt full publication lists for that category. The publications list on the biographical article serve mainly to justify the person's NACADEMIC status and should consist of the most important writings. Including minor writings is not terribly useful. Lamona (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fair to me, thanks for your input. Neighborhood Review (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion - @Neighborhood Review and Llll5032: Having read Murray Rothbard as well as the list up for deletion here, I have a suggestion for a possible compromise that tidy up both, while leaving both intact. Neighborhood Review what I suggest is to give your list a substantive lead paragraph, containing enough info so the reader knows at a glance who the subject is that deserves this list. Llll5032, It's a very long article - the reader would probably appreciate the Works section being only a sentence or two, with a link to stand-alone bibliography. Really and truly, what the two of you have come up with is just too lengthy for one article. But it would work pretty good as a stand-alone bio, and a stand-alone works list. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Murray Rothbard article needs third-party citations and replace self-published citations. CastJared (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it seems. The original creator of the article has not edited since Oct 2001. Looks to me like Llll5032 is working hard to revamp and save the article. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Maile66 and CastJared. Some sources from inside Rothbard's movement appear reliable for details about his life, and I have tried to incorporate more of those in the Murray Rothbard article. However, I have not found WP:INDY RS from outside Rothbard's movement that much discuss his individual works-- which appears to rule out their suitability for a separate bibliography page. That is why I favor the suggestions of Shushugah and Lamona. His discussed works could be kept in context on the Murray Rothbard page (with some objective selection criteria), instead of having a separate bibliography article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: Lack of independent RS is a problem in the other Wikipedia articles about Rothbard's works as well. Almost all their citations are to the Mises Institute think tank (he was its founding vice president) and other SPS. Llll5032 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion about the proposed solution would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 16 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murray_Rothbard_bibliography&oldid=1157908095"