From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Julian Assange. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

List of works about Julian Assange

List of works about Julian Assange (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A laundry list of WikiCrimes that at no point explains how it meets WP:GNG. If anything can be salvaged it should be merged into Julian Assange. Laun chba ller 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Julian Assange. This type of material is usually included in the main article on a person. I don't see anything special here. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 22:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The most notable works already appear to be covered in Assange's article. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 22:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Julian Assange - no reason for a stand-alone list like this. It looks like most of those are mentioned in the primary article so it would be a selective merge but I'm sure someone competent could do that. Stalwart 111 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per others. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question I received a notice of the nomination for deletion of this List. it says: “The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern”, but all I see here is a reference to WP:GNG which is a general introduction and not one specific to Lists. Can you please point me to specific policies and guidelines which are of concern in this particular case? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
My concern is that the article fails WP:GNG.-- Laun chba ller 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
GNG is an optional requirement, in particular for something like a Bibliography. How does one apply GNG to a bibliography, other than "because the rules say" - it's not logical and is arbitrary. Most Bibliographies would fail GNG. Per WP:CFORK, we often fork content when it makes practical sense. If it makes sense here or not I don't know, but CFORK is really the guideline we should be discussing. -- Green C 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Point taken, though I take the view that as half the content already exists in the article, there isn't enough for a stand-alone list.-- Laun chba ller 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Julian Assange, though I suspect most of the content is included already. It should be noted that a significant proportion of the content isn't 'works about Julian Assange' anyway. Neither 'Organizations founded by Julian Assange', 'Legal proceedings', nor 'People closely associated with Julian Assange' are 'works' to my way of thinking. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:SNOW. A deletion would erase important links. Bearian ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Obvious call. Snow. Carrite ( talk) 16:37, 23 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_works_about_Julian_Assange&oldid=1090390087"