Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additional reading on Liberalism

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 hmmm. Merge is out of the question given its size. There's no consensus to delete, or really to do anything, but there is a consensus it's not a viable article in and of itself. It has some uses as background for expansion of the Liberalism article. Although nobody has actually suggested it, I am going to be frightfully rouge, and move it to a subpage, at Liberalism/Additional reading. I'll drop a note on Talk:Liberalism to explain. Neıl ☎ 13:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional reading on Liberalism

Additional reading on Liberalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Indeterminate and indiscriminate reading list. Not encyclopedic. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic, simply a list of books (the list seems inclusive and is original research as well Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Liberalism. Not encyclopedic by itself, but at least some of the references could be added to the main Liberalism article. Klausness (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any reliable sources into Liberalism TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a reading list. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia articles should include further reading lists, but I don't think these should ever be long enough to require their own pages. (The typical reader of an encyclopedia article will not know enough about the topic to have any idea where to begin when presented with a list of 200+ publications.) The list in the main Liberalism article is already excessive, so don't merge. EALacey (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Keep relevant information on WP, but in a place people will actually see it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smergs (slight merge) Some of those listed would make good references in other articles. I would purge most of the foreign language lists from the En Wikipedia right out. But this list in its current form is unusable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article was the result of me objecting to the content being in the main Liberalism article in the article's talk page. In addition to this ginormus bibliography there's still a remaining ginormus bibliography in the main article. I don't really care about this one continuing to exist, but I still find the bibliography, when it's not a part of the sources list over-the-top. There is also already Contributions to liberal theory. Scott.wheeler (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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.