Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Badminton - The Wikipedia Reference Guide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Userfied CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Badminton - The Wikipedia Reference Guide

This is simply an alphabetical listing of all Badminton-related articles. There's no organization to speak of. The books could probably be re-created as Book:Badminton (which would give a general overview of Badminton, Book:Badminton Tournaments (which would contain the main articles on tournaments), (Book:Tournament Foobar, which would contain say Indonesia Open (badminton), and all editions of the cup (2001 Indonesia Open (badminton), 2002 Indonesia Open (badminton), ...), Book:Badminton Players, .... Basically books that are more than a mere listing of everything badminton-related. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like actual books, Wikipedia books are useless if they are just carelessly assembled lists of whatever happens to be available. There are numerous accepted methods of organization for books. "Everything in alphabetical order" is not generally one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I want to know everything about badminton - and that's the way how I can do it. And nearly every encyclopedia is sorted alphabetically, sometimes also using first names as sorting criterium (see Garry Sharpe-Young's Rockdetector books. (Nevertheless I like more the last names way.) --Florentyna (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Florentyna clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia books work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion is for me every time the last way out. Better it would be, to make the book better. For instance by grouping the tournaments together (all All England tournaments together, all Olympics together and so on) or by improving the sorting of the persons (last name first). Especially, since the book from Pat Davis (Encyclopaedia of Badminton, Hale, England 1987, ISBN 0709027966) there is no newer encyclopaedia about badminton available. So here is the only place to get such an encyclopaedia. By the way, in the mentioned book there is used the same way of mixing tournaments and people together and everything is sorted alphabetically. I don't think, that everything in wikipedia must be so revolutionary like requested. A 1000 years old concept of alphabetically sorting seems for me not so bad. --Florentyna (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But alphabetical sorting isn't how we do the books. It's not like the articles will disappear if the Books are deleted; they can always be restarted by someone else (even you!) in a more appropriate fashion that fits the way we do the books. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ten Pound Hammer. --Klein zach 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have no objections to userfying these books for Florentyna. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, every help is welcome. And off course, it is free to everybody for editing and improving.--Florentyna (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.