Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air pollution dispersion modeling books
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 Keep and rename to Bibliography of atmospheric dispersion modeling. (I've already completed the move procedure) Please also note, I strongly feel the Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading section should be updated to include a {{main}} tag leading to this article. As closer, I will not be making that change. Keeper | 76 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Air pollution dispersion modeling books
I'm sure that air pollution dispersion modeling is a worthwhile topic, but this page is a bibliography, and is only a listing without any indication of the notability of the topic of APDM books. It is a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. My PROD tag was removed one minute after I posted it, with the edit summary "this article has survived almost two years with no complaints. prod removed". I found the article by hitting the Random article link, so maybe it was just its time. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, or more helpfully, de-cat and move to Talk:Air pollution dispersion modeling/Books or something similar, where it could be useful for editors of the associated article. --Dhartung | Talk 10:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)- Move to talk per Dhartung's suggestion. Useful for editors even if it is not appropriate for readers. cab (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR Doc Strange (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading. Argyriou (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete and I have a number of comments:
- I do not think the article should be deleted at all. For those people who are work in the field of Air Dispersion Modeling or students who are studying in the field, such an article is an extremely useful resource.
- I see from the talk page of PatrickStar LaserPants that when MKolt removed the PROD tag with the comment "This article has survived almost two years with no complaints" it was because he felt that it was out of character for a new editor to start leaving such tags almost as soon as that new editor joined Wikipedia. I agree with MKolt that no one has complained about the article for almost two years ... and thus one could say that it has proven to be useful.
- Merging the article into Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading would make the "Further reading" section very, very much longer than the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article itself.
- As I recall, the Wikipedia Manual of Style includes a statement something like this: Rules and regulations cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.
- I admit that I am somewhat biased since I first wrote this article. Nonetheless, I feel most strongly that the article should not be deleted. - mbeychok (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Prune, merge and delete per nom. I agree that expert-edited bibliographies are useful Web content, but so are many other things that 'also' don't fit in on Wikipedia. Bm gub (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I am very uncomfortable with this deletion. I do not feel that WP:NOT#DIR applies. There is nothing in it which bars bibliographies explicitly. It appears that stand-alone lists is the criterion to apply. Perhaps this is not the best list, but I think with some annotation, since we clearly have an expert available to do so, it could serve as an excellent See Also/Further Reading link from the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article. I am the editor who removed the prod tag. While working in the User Creation log, I came across an editor whose entire edit history (at the time) included three edits, all of which were application of tags to articles. Although we encourage all editors to be WP:BOLD, something seemed amiss. So I removed the prod tag, and the article wound up here. I understand that it sounds like a personal attack to question an editor's motivations. I think something is wrong when an editor with ten thousand edits has to defend his work against an editor who arrived one night, tagged five articles, sent his disputed prod to AfD, and has not edited since. I understand that we comment on content rather than contributors. In this case, I think we give the tie to the base-runner and keep the article that the Chemical Engineer with ten thousand edits maintains. His contributions are worth keeping, even if this one may need some work to be a good encyclopaedia article. MKoltnow 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I could be a returning editor whose old identity had thousands of edits. The real issue is that it should not be a stand alone article. Also, of what utility is the list of conference proceedings to a user of Wikipedia? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who has ever done serious research on any significant subject would readily understand the value of conference proceedings devoted to that subject. - mbeychok (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, to us. But what about the average Wikipedia user? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that there are two classes of Wikipedians, us and the average Wikipedia user? Surely, you don't mean that. - mbeychok (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I was politely informing you that I have done serious research on a significant subject, and in fact should be doing it right now instead of goofing off on Wikipedia. And please explain the value of the list of conference proceedings to the Wikipedia user. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that there are two classes of Wikipedians, us and the average Wikipedia user? Surely, you don't mean that. - mbeychok (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, to us. But what about the average Wikipedia user? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who has ever done serious research on any significant subject would readily understand the value of conference proceedings devoted to that subject. - mbeychok (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I could be a returning editor whose old identity had thousands of edits. The real issue is that it should not be a stand alone article. Also, of what utility is the list of conference proceedings to a user of Wikipedia? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Suggest to Move to e.g. List of books about Air pollution dispersion modeling. I think also that WP:STAND applies, though it is not exactly clear under its current name that this is a list page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or Delete. Do not keep. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per Argyriou. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Move to e.g. List of books about Air pollution dispersion modeling as suggested by administrator Dirk Beetstra. - mbeychok (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move rather than delete. It could be useful for those into Air pollution dispersion modelling. The Vindictive (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move per Beetstra, though another discussion might be best for what title to move it to. It looks like it's just a mislabeled list, which isn't a reason to delete it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Category:Bibliographies by subject for one naming pattern to follow. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Twelve different people commented the last time on this topic of limited interest. I don't know how much thorough a debate you expect. Mandsford (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll change my vote to move as per Dirk Beetstra in the interest of a clearer consensus, given that other editors think that a standalone bibliography is acceptable. (I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the potential for some hidden POV built into the list on such an esoteric topic, though.) The name should be List of books about air pollution dispersion modeling, though, to conform with WP:NCC. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- As the original creator of this article, I agree with compromise first suggested by Dirk Beetstra to move and rename the article List of books about air pollution dispersion modeling. That makes at least six of us agreed with that idea: Beetstra, The Vindictive, lifebaka, Dhartung, Uncle G and mbeychok. - 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is not a vote. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go for Bibliography of atmospheric dispersion modelling, personally, simply because it matches more of the articles in Category:Bibliographies by subject and it can easily be seen from the name to be a summary-style sub-article of Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading, which latter of course would get a {{main}} at its head. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in disguise. Many of the items in the "Bibliographies by subject" Category should be nominated for deletion as well. Nobody has suggested sending it to Wikisource, where it would fit in well. I just looked, and there are tons of bibliographies there. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some have, and they've been kept in part on the grounds that a bibliography of a subject is valid encyclopaedia article territory (which should be obvious given that "Further reading" is one of the standard sections of an article) and a summary style breakout article of a Further reading section is just as valid as a summary style breakout article of any other section. Moreover, there's a reason that no-one has suggested moving this to Wikisource: Such a move would be quite wrong. Collecting lists of further reading for a subject is not Wikisource's territory at all. It's encyclopaedia territory. Wikisource is a source text repository. This article is not a source text in any way. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then I'd like to see even one source demonstrating the notability of the topic "Air pollution dispersion modeling books (and conference proceedings)." Has anybody published such a bibliography anywhere? (List of Adolf Hitler books this is not, that list has numerous bluelinks for both books and authors.) PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some have, and they've been kept in part on the grounds that a bibliography of a subject is valid encyclopaedia article territory (which should be obvious given that "Further reading" is one of the standard sections of an article) and a summary style breakout article of a Further reading section is just as valid as a summary style breakout article of any other section. Moreover, there's a reason that no-one has suggested moving this to Wikisource: Such a move would be quite wrong. Collecting lists of further reading for a subject is not Wikisource's territory at all. It's encyclopaedia territory. Wikisource is a source text repository. This article is not a source text in any way. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in disguise. Many of the items in the "Bibliographies by subject" Category should be nominated for deletion as well. Nobody has suggested sending it to Wikisource, where it would fit in well. I just looked, and there are tons of bibliographies there. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 23:33, 23 January 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.
