Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humayun Azad 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 keep. Consensus here is pretty close to a split between a keep and merge, and the article requires retention in order for a potential merge to occur. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Humayun Azad bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced list of mostly non-notable books, none of which are backed up with any reliable sources and some of which are also up for AfD. Also potentially fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE - 'Excessive listings of statistics'. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Humayun Azad is a notable author and we usually keep lists of works of notable writers. @nominator: You claim that the books are not notable - did you try to search for sources in Bengali language? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that isn't a language I'm familiar with - if you are, please add sources and improve the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All this material can also be found on Humayun Azad. Hence it should be removed from the main article or this should be deleted/redirected. I'm not sure he quite needs a separate bibliography, but it's reasonable to carry this information somewhere since almost all notable writers have some form of Wikipedia bibliography either in their main article or as a spin-out. Even if you believe some of these books do not exist, that is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a list article as a content fork when an article gets too large is a good idea. Having a list of a notable author's works is also a good idea. However (and this is kind of the crux of my argument), the information still has to be verifiable, so unless and until somebody improves the list by citing each work to a reliable source, we should not have it. Compare and contrast with List of Hammond organs - note how every single entry is sourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A part of his bibliography is verifiable by this reliable source (Dawn). I'm sure it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That partially addresses the verifiability issue, but I'm not sure it addresses the issue of being an inappropriate content fork. The current revision of Humayun Azad is 17,885 bytes, of which 5527 (824 words) is prose. As a general rule of thumb, you probably want to be looking an article size of at least double that to think about having a bibliography as a content fork. To give a comparable example, Salman Rushdie is on 55K, has several content splits, but his bibliography is not one of them and listed in the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can be a list of works of a notable writer inappropriate content fork? The bibliography could be redirected and merged to Humayun Azad but we should not delete it. Btw, I know that the recent AfD noms regarding Humayun Azad are affected by this ANI thread. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, I feel a merge / redirect is only appropriate if you think somebody's likely to type the name into the search box, and I tend to find "'x' bibliography", "'x' discography" or "list of 'x'" works aren't. And I'd say the same regardless of who's appeared on ANI recently, as I made this identical argument before (example 1, example 2) regardless of who happened to create the article in the first place. I'll admit I was a bit harsh about saying "non-notable" when I probably actually meant "not currently verified". Let's see what other people have to say on the issue now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can be a list of works of a notable writer inappropriate content fork? The bibliography could be redirected and merged to Humayun Azad but we should not delete it. Btw, I know that the recent AfD noms regarding Humayun Azad are affected by this ANI thread. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That partially addresses the verifiability issue, but I'm not sure it addresses the issue of being an inappropriate content fork. The current revision of Humayun Azad is 17,885 bytes, of which 5527 (824 words) is prose. As a general rule of thumb, you probably want to be looking an article size of at least double that to think about having a bibliography as a content fork. To give a comparable example, Salman Rushdie is on 55K, has several content splits, but his bibliography is not one of them and listed in the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A part of his bibliography is verifiable by this reliable source (Dawn). I'm sure it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a list article as a content fork when an article gets too large is a good idea. Having a list of a notable author's works is also a good idea. However (and this is kind of the crux of my argument), the information still has to be verifiable, so unless and until somebody improves the list by citing each work to a reliable source, we should not have it. Compare and contrast with List of Hammond organs - note how every single entry is sourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author page. 1) if the books are notable is irrelevant, books don't need to pass notability to be included in a bibliography 2) The bibliography here is better, it's in table format with additional information. 3) I don't think the list is so long that it needs a separate bibliography. Merge into the author page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 16 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Green Cardamom. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This has enough in it to warrant a stand-alone list. I see close to 40 works, more than enough to warrant a stand-alone list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 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.