Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Conservative Monday Club publications

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 No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conservative Monday Club publications

WP:NOT a directory. A list of publications by a political group seems to be unencyclopedic material. Any notable publications which had a wider impact could easily be mentioned at Conservative Monday Club, if there are any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bibliographical material is generally quite suitable for Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 13:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps an annotated bibliography would be, but a bald list of publications appears to fall foul of Wikipedia is not a directory, point 3. The publications are of such limited distribution and importance that the overwhelming majority are not included in the British Library integrated catalogue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'directory' point isn't much good. We have lists of books by Belloc and Blyton, Chesterton and Derrida ... need I go on? Lists are lists; saying that they could be annotated also is always true, but the criteria for lists are not about that. Charles Matthews 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair point is that publications should be verifiablle. I have deleted a whole section ('policy papers') and have had some success with verifying others, or satisfying myself thay are obscure. (One was on eBay ... I didn't cite that!). Given the provenance, I believe these all existed, but within our rules it is reasonable to ask for more. Charles Matthews

Right, I've made a pass at verifying all the booklets. The ones with Anthony Courtney: clearly exist, he was a British Naval Intelligence officer who annoyed the KGB enough into publishing a compromising photo of him from a decade before - interesting story. Charles Matthews

Keep, merge of you want. --Sandy Scott 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~As far as I can tell, the publications are "self-published," which means (1) they're not notable; and (2) their existence is not verified by any reliable source. Is there any way, for example, for us to confirm the existence of those publications? TheronJ 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the British Library catalogue works as claimed, and the Monday Club was indeed the publisher of these works, five are catalogued. A random sampling of the remainder, searching by author/title, found no others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not Keep all the verifiable items, mark the rest as unverified for now. We can verify a lot more from the

Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [1]. And by the way, Wikipedia is self-published, as are government publications, and many Newspapers. Many larger organisations self-publish works, it doesn't follow that they are 'not notable' (whatever that means).--Sandy Scott 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN is what it means--Dmz5 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many organisations that are notable self-publish - but here we are talking about publications we can't even verify - so they simply cannot be included. If this article is kept, it will properly be trimmed to the five verifiable works that TheronJ describes - and I imagine at that point the deletion debate will be restarted by someone. --SandyDancer 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim list to those publications that can be verified by reliable sources. Once that's done, consider a merge and redirect to Conservative Monday Club. It looks like there's good progress being made on verifying some of the publications. Once that's done, the editors can consider a merge and redirect, but AFD is not necessary for either of those actions. TheronJ 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge remaning content - it seems to have been established above by TheronJ that most of the publications listed (i.e. all bit five) cannot be verified. Why not delete the page and move those five publication to a section of the Monday Cub article? --SandyDancer 12:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty more are verifiable. There were typos etc.; the current list should be OK. Charles Matthews

- This article was spun off from the Monday Club by Charles Matthews. I presume, but haven't bothered verifying, that the content was added there by one or other of the now-banned editors who took an interest in this subject. While delete and merge is not normally accepted as an outcome, I see no reason why it should not be in this case, as the content being merged is still attributed to its creators in the history of the Monday Club piece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 17 December 2006 (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.