Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

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 merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. There is a consensus that these don't belong in article space as stand-alone articles, but that doesn't mean they don't belong somewhere. For the time being I have closed this as merge to the article that links most to each article (I note that the two bibliographies only have 9 and 2 incoming article links, so that's not going to cause a problem). Whether, as DGG suggests, these should be in projectspace is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

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

These aren't articles; instead, they are simply lists of references (mostly primary sources) linked to from a handful of articles of which all but one are 100% in-universe fancruft. There's no practical way to turn these into articles or otherwise make use of their contents, and it is unnecessary to hive off the few sources presented therein from the parent articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bibliography and so is acceptable content per WP:BIBLIO. A bibliography is especially useful in this case because the mythos is based on the work of many authors. See A Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography & Concordance for a good independent bibliography which establishes the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIBLIO does nothing to establish its standing in the project. I'd never seen it before, it has only ~60 inbound links, and it includes a mere handful of articles (all of which denote subjects of far more obvious notability than the fictional content in the nominated pages, the vast majority of which are primary sources in any case). I'm not inclined to believe that WP:BIBLIO has any particular authority as a community resource. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That list page is utterly incomplete. See Category:Bibliographies by subject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies for a better representation of the scope/standing. –Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for this list, it seems to be a mixture of WP:SPLITLIST (Split off due to size constraints, and to prevent having to repeat it in each relevant article) as well as a bibliography of all the books relevant to the Cthulhu mythos. So tentative keep both for both those reasons.
However, I don't understand why there are 2 lists. Could someone clarify that, and how/why they differ, in the introductions to both these lists? Why is Reference#Burleson different from Alphanumeric#Burleson ? Could they be merged? –Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know — the scheme just seems over-elaborate. We should just merge the bibliographies into a more conventional format. I plan to edit the related articles to remove the need for the codes. Warden (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly absurd in article space; this is a work page, and should be kept in WP space, I do not see that we have a Cthulhu Wikiproject or workgroup, and if we do not, that someone is willing to go to all this work and others are apparently interested is good reason to start one DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not a work page or draft. It is used as a common set of references for other pages such as Books in the Cthulhu Mythos and Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. The nomination doesn't explain that separate attempts have been made to delete those pages by WP:PROD. The primary authors of those pages don't seem to have been notified. Tsk.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recap As this has been relisted, new joiners should note that the notability of the topic is established by substantial sources including:

Warden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list of references does not seem standard for the types of articles we have as an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, we have lots of bibliographies on Wikipedia. The format of this one is non-standard but that will be addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is inline with Warden's. There is a place here for a bibliography of this widespread mythos per WP:BIBLIO BUT the two pages should be combined and the format more standardized. J04n(talk page) 11:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING; this fictional minutiae is outside the scope of WP:BIBLIO. Miniapolis 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list of tables looks good, but are irrelevant without the needed information. I think it should be merged with Cthulhu Mythos deities, Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, Cthulhu Mythos arcane literature, Cthulhu Mythos biographies, and Cthulhu Mythos celestial bodies. Citrusbowler (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These seem to just be decidedly non-standard reference lists for other Wikipedia articles. I don't see any good reason for not using a standard referencing style, so merge into the other relevant articles. —me_and 17:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Me and: and @Citrusbowler: As mentioned above, the list(s) are separate because of size, and to prevent redundancy/duplication. It is comparable to List of Shakespeare plays in quarto or Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, where different aspects are concentrated upon, and can be pointed to from other articles rather than re-iterating duplicate material. (Also slightly comparable to Harold Pinter bibliography/Works of Harold Pinter). So merge isn't really an ideal option. (The 2 lists could be merged into 1 list, as I suggested; but it would be difficult and possibly unhelpful to merge them into 5 distinct articles.) I'd gently suggest you reconsider. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2013 (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.