Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish Historic House books recently published

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 move to project space. Actually, this can be closed now. Consensus is that this does not belong in mainspace, but can go in project space. I'm going to move it to Wikipedia:British and Irish Historic House books recently published for now. Feel free to move it elsewhere. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British and Irish Historic House books recently published[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

R12056 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably move to a project page or WP space--these bibliographies are useful working tools at Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by article creator: The article will cover an approximately rolling 3 year period, hence always being recent (so the 2008 section will be removed at the end of 2010, etc). It is intended as a bibliography and sources section for all the articles mentioned in the first line, which would not be practical to split because of overlap and duplication. Not 'all' books will be listed, but rather those that significantly address the subject matter, and hence will not be 'indiscriminate information'. This article is not a directory, such as a library catalog listing, because it is selective, adds relevant comments and covers a number of topics which could not be duplicated by one single search criteria, hence the need for this article. These clarifications can be inserted in the article introduction, if kept. Andrewtriggs (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The PROD rationale was "Wikipedia is not a directory. Listing all books published on this topic in 2008 or later, regardless of their significance, appears to be indiscriminate information. There's no clear reason for making 2008 the cut-off, and in future years 2008 will no longer be "recent" (in other words, even if the article remains, there are obvious reasons why the title should be changed, but changing the title won't solve the essential problems with the topic)". I declined the PROD on a procedural basis, since we're at AFD now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the project space. This seems to be a useful resource, as DGG notes, but it's inappropriate as an article. If the works themselves are notable (unlikely, as some haven't been published yet), they would have articles of their own. Is this associated with a Wikiproject that might take on the constant management such a list will require? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I was the one who prodded the article and left the comments copied here by User:Ultraexactzz and responded to by User:Andrewtriggs. I had nothing to do with bringing the article to AFD, especially while my prod was still active.) The label of "indiscriminate information" here does not mean that there is no criteria at all for the items to be included on the list; it means that the list does not meet any criteria that justifies inclusion as a Wikipedia article, such as discussing only books that have made a significant impact on their field. If the only criteria for a book to be included on the list is its subject matter, then it is a directory -- or a bibliography, as the article's creator says. A bibliography is not an article. Propaniac (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.