| Revision as of 21:29, 17 November 2005 editRK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,561 editsm →Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:06, 17 November 2005 edit undoJfdwolff (talk | contribs)Administrators81,547 edits →Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"?Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Please see ] | Please see ] | ||
| :I think that is the best thing one can do with this page. ] | ] 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:06, 17 November 2005
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)