Talk:Jay E. Adams bibliography

Reversion of the redirect that effectively deleted the bibliography

I reverted the edits that effectively deleted this bibliography through a merge that actually didn't merge the content. It deserves a look at AfD if editors are hard over on its deletion and failure to meet WP:NOTESAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT piece of WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS -- AfD guidelines are very explicit -- merger or redirection should be contemplated WP:BEFORE AfD. Also a WP:REDIRECT is not a WP:DELETION so does not require an AfD! Given that little or nothing you have said to date has any basis in policy or fact, I really wish you'd hold your tongue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If one examines these two diffs [1] and [2] it is fairly evident that the merge you executed from this article to the main article with the resulting redirect was missing one important thing. Where did all the bibliographic entries go after the merge? You didn't add them to the main article, you just deleted them from the bibliography article. In other words, you deleted verifiable content and attempted to disguise that deletion as a merge. Am I missing something here? This isn't a policy question, its about verifiable content that was deleted, and that deletion is being opposed. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What an utterly demented piece of WP:WIKILAWYERing:

1. The edit that I made was explicitly a WP:REDIRECT, not a merger -- so endless harping on about merging is irrelevant.
2. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE contents of this bibliography weren't included as (i) the article already had a summarised bibliography & (ii) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
3. What you are "missing" is any understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice: articles wholly lacking in third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability are routinely redirected (see WP:V#Notability). Where that redirect is challenged and/or vestigial third-party sourcing is added, they are routinely proposed for merger, often as bare redirects. Only when these first two remedies fail to reach a WP:CONSENSUS may an AfD be necessitated.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, I apologize for refering to this deletion of verifiable content as the result of a merge. I was confused by the edit summaries just prior to the creation of the redirect [3] by two separate editors who suggested a merge in their edit summaries. I am curious though as to why after an editor PRODDED the articles and within 3 minutes another editor DEPRODDED the article, both of whom suggested merge in their edit summaries, why you chose to create a redirect that effectively deleted the verifiable content. Do you think that action was consistent with WP:CONTESTED? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As what I did was (as I keep telling you over and over and over again) a WP:REDIRECT, NOT deletion, let alone a WP:Proposed deletion, WP:CONTESTED does not apply to my edit. There appeared to be an implicit consensus between those editors active on this article that a redirect was appropriate -- so you really shouldn't have unredirected it without seeking a fresh consensus to the contrary. And please STOP harping on about 'effective deletion' & 'verifiable content' -- WP:INDISCRIMINATE content is, and should be, routinely removed from Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful in this discussion for you to explain why you believe a list of works by a notable author violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We currently have 252 author bibliographies in WP which list the works authored by notable authors Category:Bibliographies by author. Is all that content indiscriminate as well? If this content is indiscriminate and the others are not, what's the differentiator? WP:LSC is fairly clear about inclusion criteria for a list. Are you saying that the books listed as being authored by Jay E. Adams in this bibliography, aren't in fact authored by him? Please explain why you believe this content is indiscriminate? --Mike Cline (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) The author in question is only marginally notable -- as the relative dearth of third-party content in his article indicates. (ii) That a bibliography that is several times longer than the biography of its author is WP:INDISCRIMINATE should be blindingly obvious. This is not Category talk:Bibliographies by author, so whether or not the bibliographies listed there are indiscriminate or not (almost certainly some will be, some won't be) is irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must admit that I am not nearly as knowledgeable as most of you when it comes to the rules and regulations regarding Wikipedia articles. However, in order to maintain these articles, would you perhaps be willing to lay out its needs? Meaning, is it third party resources, more biographical information, more citations, etc.? I believe this would be more helpful than the current back and forth. I believe this would prove two things: (1) it would allow users to go on to monitor other posts that need attention. (2) it would help fully establish an article with integrity than many would find useful. I hope you are willing and able to lend some advice in this area. As I said, I do not know much about the rules, but if I have some specific guidelines, I can begin working on those to meet respected standards. Thanks! timmillr^Talk09:38, 23 December 2011 (EST)

There are two issues: notability and selectiveness/non-indiscriminateness. A list is notable if "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (which guidelines require "significant coverage"). For the list to be selective, every list-member should have its own article. I would further point out that a complete bibliography is already included as a WP:EL to the biography article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What part of "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" did you fail to comprehend?

Are you saying that the books listed as being authored by Jay E. Adams in this bibliography, aren't in fact authored by him?

— Mike Cline

Please read WP:COMPETENCE and consider yourself to thoroughly & repeatedly WP:TROUTed. Please cease and desist suggesting that I hold viewpoints that are directly contradicted by my own statements. Further misrepresentation of my statements, actions or of policy will most likely result in a very statement to that fact, rather than any wider response. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of this article

This article is a bibliography and thus a List. It is not subject to the notability guideline for Books, but instead subject to the notability guideline for Stand-alone lists WP:NOTESAL. Thus the current tag on the article is removed because it does not apply to this article. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Removal of a template because it has the wrong parameter set is prima facie WP:disruptive editing.
2. As you have only asserted, not demonstrated, that this bibliography meets WP:NOTESAL, your argument amounts to WP:ITSNOTABLE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles is helpful here, but it is, of course, based on WP:NOTESAL. The key issue is whether Adams' bibliography is notable - that is, whether the topic of "works by Jay E. Adams" is discussed in reliable sources. A Google Books search reveals "Works by Jay E. Adams" as a "special listing" in Biblical counsel: resources for renewal: an annotated topical bibliography of works containing biblical counsel for persons seeking lasting solutions to life's problems. That's all I can find just at the moment. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)