Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical guitar bibliography

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.

Consensus is still forming, but apparently deleted as an expired prod. I'll contact the deleter, so in the meantime, please do not make a decision on what to do unless the issue is resolved. Thanks. Sr13 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Looking at this debate, I don't think there is clear consensus for any changes, so I've defaulted to keep. --Evilclown93(talk) 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical guitar bibliography

Classical guitar bibliography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod on 28th June with this reason: "WP:NOT for lists of external links. This list gives no understanding, doesn't help in navigating, doesn't add information on any subject: it(s just a pointer to non-Wikipeda information. We are an encycloepdia, a textbook of knowledge, not a pointer to external knowledge." However, it looks like a bibliography link from the main Classical guitar article. As such it may be inappropriate to delete it. There may be a discussion on if the contents should be merged back into the main article, or left as a stand-alone. But there is also the possibility of it being Listcruft, so some discussion to determine deletion might be in order. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting Question about stand-alone subject bibliographies. Thereis agreement about the appropriateness of a list of the works of a creative artist if the contents in the particular case justify it--how extensive it must be to be justified is still under discussions at MOS. Normally I do not think WP is the place for subject bibliographies as separate articles, and this list is not too long to fit in the article. But I'm not sure we have any rules that cover. It is not really a list of external links.--the only links are the ISBNs for the books, asrequired by the MOS for such references.DGG 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that bibliographies are inherently useful and by their nature encyclopedic. The question is whether it is sufficiently large that it has to be spun off. In this case, this is way too large to be merged. Bucketsofg 13:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bucketsofg, or merge with the Classical guitar article, if it's determined not to be too large to do so.--JayJasper 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 July 2007 (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.