Talk:Library of Sir Thomas Browne/Delete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This page is record of the discussion that followed the listing of this article on Votes for deletion. The large number of comments in favour of keeping the article meant it was delisted from VfD on October 4th.

• Library of Sir Thomas Browne - Maybe we want to go down this road, but if we do, can I ask why? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 13:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge it into Pseudodoxia Epidemica and delete, I reckon -- Onebyone 13:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • As I promised Norwikian, I'm changing my mind. I still think the information in this article could be presented just as well in the Pseudodoxia Epidemica and Sir Thomas Browne articles, but since it relates in parts to both, I no longer see such a strong case for merging. -- Onebyone 20:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I just don't understand why my contribution on Sir T.B.'s library has been voted for deletion. Surely it is of interest to read a SHORT sample of the library contents of one of early modern Europe's encyclopaedists ? Perhaps no-one recognises the titles ?? But i discern exactly where this this grandiose project is coming from by the fact that of the 100000's of articles written as of yet not one upon the Working Class!! (see Proletariat perhaps) . What an indictment of the interests and sociology of Wiki Contributers!! I am rapidly becoming disillusioned with the elitism of wikipedia and shall broadcast these facts far and wide across the web should this page be removed,.The off-hand way by which decisions are made is a bit disturbing. Contact the poster, don't vote behind their back ! The Norwikian
  • I think it needs more context, including a link to Thomas Browne (and a link from Thomas Browne to Sir Thomas Browne's library). But otherwise I don't see a problem with it. I say keep -- sannse 15:47, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • To the Norwikian: Nobody is doing things behind anyone's back--we discuss it here in public, and put a note on the page. Since we don't require contributors to supply email addresses, this is about as much as can be done. And yes, the articles on Working class and Proletariat could use much expansion, but they do exist. Please improve them. Vicki Rosenzweig 16:13, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement with Sannse, more context and good links and it might be informative to someone studying him.Ark30inf 20:19, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. LirQ
  • Keep, but ONLY if you explain in the first two sentences why this is significant. Had to read a lot and click on Thomas Browne before I got enough context (and I still don't understand the significance of the library). Don't bury the lead. Fuzheado
  • I think it can be made into a useful article and should be kept. I'm more concerned about Norwikia's rant. I can understand the frustration (he/she put some valuable time into creating the page), but does he/she really think broadcasting that Wikipedia might be an intellectual excercise is going to bring the dogs of the working class down on the project? Try and view it this way: will Norwikia (or anyone) be here 5, 10, 20 years from now when someone else will decide to move all the Sir T.B stuff into a common article? Nothing any of us do today is a permanent part of the Wikipedia. No matter how much ownership you feel for an article, that ownership is temporary any way you cut it. Relax and think long-term. Protect the info you add if you will; but don't get apoplectic over it. Time will outlast you, it always does. - Marshman 19:09, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say combine with the article on Thomas Browne, because I've never heard of this encyclopedist before, but as the article is a sincere attempt to provide information, and if it could be clearer why the library is important in and of itself, perhaps it would stand on its own better... -- Bcorr 19:22, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bcorr - at first blush it would seem that the contents of one person's library is not really encyclopedia material. Too much detail - does the library of every notable literary figure deserve its own article? Axlrosen 03:20, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
• Apologies for wounded sensibilties. Mea culpa, and probably blotted my wiki eschutcheon, just frustated after 8 years on and off study of this doc. that gets misundersttod. My lousy writing. Still VfD makes poster write conciser and preciser to justify inclusion . Page not quite yet finished (14:16) Hope intro. para now explains better. Just 'cos you ain't heard of someone no reason to delete. Still say most have not grasped true status of polymath,(coined words such as 'computer' 'electricity' 'medical' contributions/status in history of science as well as religion and lit.Why would a Dean of Yale Uni. devote twenty years to indexing this catalogue ? Norwikian 14:21
  • I'm sure Thomas Browne is very important. But, how generally relevant are the contents of his library? Wikipedia does not need to contain EVERY bit of knowledge that can be written down about EVERY topic. When material gets this detailed, people should go to specialized sources for it, like a book or a dedicated web site. Do you suggest that we should have an article on the contents of the library of EVERY famous person? Axlrosen 22:21, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • But not every famous person has the contents of their Library catalogued.Not every library is over 300 years old or owned by an encyclopaedist or formed part of the British Library, Not every famous person is capable of absorbing knowledge from the spheres of science, religion and literature. I am merely showing 50 titles, not all 1500. I've seen many just as equally obscure articles here, but as to their relevance if i am not capable of understanding the facts for why they have been posted. This all smells a little cryptophobic and perhaps even wary of anti-Ancient world/clasical learning to me. I am merely using these 50 sample titles to illustrate the breadth and depth of a historical person's reading material (probably far greater a compass than many wiki's) Using these titles as a template I have immediately discovered a quite stubby, only half-factual entry which badly needs developing.(Athenaeus).Again to quote Scaliger, 'To cull from books what others have reported is exceedingly dangerous; true knowledge of things are from the things themselves' i.e why not have entries from those that have primary familarity of work in question something which the poster on Athenaeus clearly did not have, yet curiously has not been VfD. Now off to correct and develop it. Norwikian 10:33 B.S.T

• Keep. I see no problem in having an article on a historic 300 year old library. It isn't exactly like your ordinary local library. FearÉIREANN 18:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• • Keep. If someone wants to write that sort of detail, there is no reason to stop them. If it was about some ridiculous Quackmore Duck's library (it wouldn't surprise me if that was an article) then I might have some reservations as to its usefulness, but I think the reasons Norwikian puts forward for keeping this library are very valid. Angela 19:09, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

• I too am tending towards keeping. All in all Norwikians justifications for retaining it seem Ok. The intro makes a big difference; and demonstrates that this is a significant historic whole. We may have to revisit this subject when someone writes a similar list of say some presidents letters or something of the like, but at least we will have this discussion to give us some context for a decision. That is, as I see it, consensus appears to be that isn't anything wrong in listing the contents of a library in and of itself, but that maybe this kind of content may have to be judged on a case by case basis (which we always do anyway, but...) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:40, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article is no longer listed on VfD.