Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jacob Neusner bibliography: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:40, 3 February 2007 editThadius856AWB (talk | contribs)Bots45,945 edits Prepending {{WPBooks|class=|needs-infobox=}} using AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 15:02, 3 August 2007 edit undoWolf2191 (talk | contribs)763 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:


:I think that is the best thing one can do with this page. ] | ] 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC) :I think that is the best thing one can do with this page. ] | ] 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Honsetly, This page is ridiculous. I suggest we place all the translations as one entry, (translations of Talmud and Medrash), and similar editing.] 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:02, 3 August 2007

WikiProject iconBooks Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

VfD

On April 6, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Jacob Neusner bibliography for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was nominated again, and kept: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Jacob Neusner bibliography 2. Eugene van der Pijll 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"?

Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"? Looking at the most recent discussion page on the proposal to delete the article, shouldn't it be concluded that the consensus was to trim down the bibliography to a more reasonable level, and merge that into the main Jacob Neusner article? I am concerned that Neusner's massive bibliography page is (a) not an encyclopedia article, (b) a vanity page, (c) Totally out of line when compared to the bibliographies of all other people on this entire encyclopedia, and (d) not even in line with Neusner's own college! They don't bother to place all this info on their website. Given the comments on the discussion page, I hope if no one takes offense at me attempting to edit this bibliography down to a more modest level. RK 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Neusner_bibliography_2

I think that is the best thing one can do with this page. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Honsetly, This page is ridiculous. I suggest we place all the translations as one entry, (translations of Talmud and Medrash), and similar editing.Wolf2191 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Jacob Neusner bibliography: Difference between revisions Add topic