Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about the Troubles

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 snow keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about the Troubles

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

Wrongly nominated at MFD. Discussion from there follows for ease of reference. I am neutral. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books, should this not be a list of notable books? Not a reference directory WP:NOT Murry1975 (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list of books about the Troubles is certainly notable and will expand over time, that is all that is needed for an article at Wikipedia. There are many lists of books in Wikipedia on a wide-variety of topics, this is a new list and there are still many more notable books on the topic to be added over time by editors. IQ125 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a comment at the MfD about it being nominated at the wrong venue. I should have looked more closely and opined at the same time, however, as it looks like Murry1975 may not be aware of bibliographies on Wikipedia. In fact, we have a whole project dedicated to them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. There's no firm rule about this, but I find that best practice is for bibliographies to be labeled as such (i.e. I think this should be renamed Bibliography of works on The Troubles). The test of whether something is an appropriate topic for a bibliography is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles. "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a list of books, which is a common topic at Wikipedia, it is not a bibliography. IQ125 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not easy to think of a reason why this clearly notable and self-citing list should be deleted. The list has nothing to do with being a directory as claimed by nom. Plainly as IQ125 observes the list is incomplete - there are actually some titles in The Troubles not listed here - but it is a sharply delimited topic, so the list will have a simple and clear inclusion criterion, and the topic is obviously encyclopaedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that lists of books are obliged to comply with the lofty standard described above, but it seems that this topic unsurprisingly meets it. Bibliographies include

CAIN Warwick The Guardian Gillespie's A to Z of the NI Conflict Edwards Anthony and Mageean Sanders and Wood There are many others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per IQ. And in any case these are generally notable authors re. WP:LIST. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) (looks like these have largely been covered already. oh well) For published lists outside of works about the subject, I found The Guardian, University of Ulster (here again), University of Warwick, and Youth Justice Review. As for bibliographies in published reliable sources on the topic, there exist a whole lot of relevant books about the subject containing bibliographies. E.g. The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace, Michael Collins and the Troubles ...and there look to be several more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per IQ. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sheer volume of works on the Troubles by itself makes this list worth having (even if that article were a featured article, it couldn't possibly cite every work about the conflict or list them all in a "further reading" section. I've no doubt that the body of literature has been the subject of academic discussion, and list comprises (or will comprise as it is expanded) many works by notable authors and probably even works that are notable in their own right. A list like this would be an extremely valuable resource both for the public and for Wikipedians researching the topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 9 September 2015 (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.