Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Outline)

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Outline)

This is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 06:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep This article is an outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Since it so long, instead of putting it on that page, I just made a separate page for it. I think it makes sense to have something like this for such a long and complex work. This is similiar to what I and others have done for The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, The Story of Civilization, and The Histories of Herodotus. --JW1805 07:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extremely useful. Kappa 07:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC). Also wikipedia is not paper. If we can have Simpsons episode guides, why not an outline of the most famous book on the most famous empire ever? Kappa 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a capsule introduction concerning the book and Gibbon to offer context. It's so much easier to slap a tab on an article than actual edit it, is not that so? The Simpsons analogy is quite aprops: telling of Wikipedian priorities in general. --Wetman 08:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks" in the above statement have been deleted by Rick K and restored by myself. Kappa 09:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal: it's always true. I didn't bother to see who was responsible for this particular tag. --Wetman 09:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the cleanup tag, yes it's easier for me to add the tag, and yes it's easier for someone who knows the book and the article to write the intro. Kappa 09:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons outlined by JW1805--Jjcarroll 08:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need to cramp Wikipedia on the basis of some obselete idea of what an encyclopedia is. Oliver Chettle 14:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a simpler explanation, that assumes good faith. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC) (Responding to this version of the comment.)
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire isn't that long, and (as Radiant! would say) "information does not want to be alone". As a freestanding article, this lacks context to explain that it is about a book, and it's a reasonable mistake to make to think that this is the beginnings of an actual wikibook on the history of the Roman Empire (which indeed would not be an encyclopaedia article, and I suspect is what RickK thought this was). The title really doesn't give any clue, either, and indeed lends weight to the hypothesis that this is the draft outline for a wikibook. There's space to Merge this into The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which, by putting the information in context, eliminates the need to write an introduction to give this article the context that it is lacking. Note that in all of the other book articles mentioned, the outline is included in the main article. If in the future you want to treat the contents of the book in detail, by the way, I suggest a {{wikibookspar}} tag on the encyclopaedia article and a The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire book on the Annotated works bookshelf at Wikibooks. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Delete as nonencyclopedic. It's not even an outline of the book, it's just the table of contents. (And even if it were an outline of the book, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic.) --Angr/_comhrá 15:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedic. It's a forum to provide expansion on chapter summarys and context and relevance and information about abridgements and key ideas and quotes. If/when things progress, each chapter could be an article, just as we have individual articles on each line of the Bible. Personal notions of what an encyclopedia is, or isnt, are opinions. Stbalbach 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. ✏ OvenFresh ² 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful. Wiki is not paper.