Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

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. Canley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a listcruft containing only original research. Pilotbob (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I do not see this as original research in any way. It is doing what all editors do, collecting information from sources. That is not original research. This is a most interesting and thoroughly encyclopedic entry. --Bduke (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Simply putting 'cruft' on the end of a word isn't an argument. Having articles written by people who actually know something about the subject might be seen by some to be a good thing. Nick mallory (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the term cruft in this way is common in AFD threads. See WP:CRUFT#Usage. Your comments do not address any of the problems with the article. Pilotbob (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that 'cruft' is commonly used in these discussions, I'm saying that it's not an argument in itself. My point is that you don't actually present an argument for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the extensive evaluative annotations would appear to be OR, and the mere list of books is not encyclopedic, so there's no usable content DGG (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: On the surface I find Bibliographies in Wikipedia very useful. There are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject. I suspect there are more that are not categorized. All these bibliographies have one thing in common—they are a list of well cited references related to a particular subject. With the WP emphasis on citing sources, these bibliographies are important. Although their formats differ, their content is essentially the same. If this particular article is Non-Wikipedic then they all are which I believe is not the case. I would be hard pressed to provide a rationale to delete: Bibliography of the Western Apache (or any other bibliography) on grounds other than Bibliographies are not encyclopedic—a premise that I disagree with. The other rationale for Keeping this and other bibliographies is that most of them have been embraced and referenced in their respective Project pages. Members of a project find bibliographies very useful in working on new and existing articles as well as expanding their overall knowledge about the Project subject. To delete this or any other bibliography would be a disservice to knowledge on the related subject.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the OR here. There's the occasional unsourced statement one wonders whether it's from the jacket flap or whatnot, but by and large the comments contain statements thare would be patently obvious to anyone who had the book in hand. Furthermore, as noted above, this is the sort of research that compilers of encyclopedias are supposed to be doing. Think of it as a "For further reading" section split off for summary style reasons from all the flyfishing articles. Keep —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There's certainly a lot of unsourced personal opinion masquerading as fact and weasel wording ("an argument that today seems", "readable but comprehensive", "excellent read", "probably the most", "beautiful compilation", "masterfully", "transcends the cavalier attitude", "very nicely written", "superbly told", and so forth). Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This looks more like a collection of short book reviews than a bibliography. It contains unsourced, NPOV violating statements like "Skues was the greatest early twentieth-century authority on nymph fishing for trout" and "The first definitive biography of the father of dry fly fishing". The information is not independent or verifiable. I have a feeling that some may also by copyright violations which is difficult to determine because the statements aren't sourced. If these statements are copyvios they are probably original research (actually, opinion may be a more appropriate term). Pilotbob (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to a subpage of WikiProject Fishing instead of deleting (and trim out the opinion/annotations). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of the annotations need to be fixed, but overall I find this article very useful. If it is deleted it should be moved to a page in WikiProject Fishing, as above. themcman1 talk 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Usefulness is not a good argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL Pilotbob (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not really have a fixed place for this sort of material. Possibly the wikiproject would be the best of the various possibilities. DGG (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - some good arguments from both sides but I do see it as useful. I never knew about "The Joys of Trout" (sounds somewhat familiar though?) so if I hadn't scanned through that bibliography I never would have know it was there! All jokes aside though it's good for reference purposes and to me that's what an encyclopedia is all about. The fact that there are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject also helped me say keep. Sting_au Talk 06:12, 16 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.