Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books on bullying

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books on bullying

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

Article was originally created to tie in with the now deleted List of fictional bullies. The idea of listing fictional books that feature bullying or have bullying characters is discredited as being OR and POV - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bullies. The current content comprising a list of non-fiction books on bullying and workplace bullying, is duplicated in those articles thus making this article redundant.--Penbat (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bullying. Regardless of whether this at one time included "fictional books that feature bullying or have bullying characters", very few bibliographies are stand alone articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. On the other hand, bibliographies are welcome as "further reading" in any article. As a bibliography, it should be moved to an existing article, if not the one about bullying, then to something else. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misread my sentence "The current content comprising a list of non-fiction books on bullying and workplace bullying, is duplicated in those articles thus making this article redundant." Content has already been merged to bullying and workplace bullying thus this is a simple delete.--Penbat (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood that sentence fairly well. It's the rest of the argument that I couldn't fathom. I'll confess that I don't understand what the prior history of the article has to do with the question of what to do with it now. I read (or maybe misread) that part several times and I still don't get it. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give a long list of fictional titles was the primary reason why the article was created in the first place. But the idea of listing fictional titles was later discredited just leaving behind a relatively short list of non-fictional titles which can be (and already have been) listed in bullying and workplace bullying.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Nom as these lists are already merged into the main articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (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.