443:" Merger is not deletion and so this a matter of ordinary editing. As for the facts of the matter, I don't see why the print runs of religious works or the thoughts of Chairman Mao should be any less well-documented than the works of authors like Charles Dickens, which were pirated in the USA and are long out of copyright. Sales and printing are both grounded in particular technologies and modes of business. What about library loans? What about digital downloads? We have many
218:- even its lead misrepresents the contents as there are no book series in the content. Few readers are going to realise there are two articles and I'd lost track of that fact myself. It's out of date for that reason. If there is a desire to have a list of books for these four religious books and the words of Chairman Mao, set up such a list as that seems to be the only thing distinguishing the two. The last AfD didn't fix the problem.
489:. This would be a sortable list with several columns for a variety of relevant statistics including: print run, editions, translations, unit sales, revenue, &c. These are all common measures of success for a book and so it makes sense to combine them rather than bicker about the use of a particular one. Doing this would be a matter of ordinary editing in which we would preserve the existing content per our
240:. While that list is regularly maintained and expanded(although all help is welcome!), the list of most-printed books is only used as a battle-ground between different religions (and a few people trying to maintain NPOV like Dougweller), with the result that the last 100 edits, going back six months, contain nothing but edits to Bible and Qu'ran to change numbers, authors, ...
507:
It would make more sense to have a separate short list for the religious and political books (or two separate ones). The list we are discussing here though is just for 99% an old copy of the best-selling list, so that a few books could be included and be edit-warred about (indicating just how hard it
306:
This discussion makes me uncomfortable because of the idea that we should delete the page because it's only used for edit-warring. The trouble is that if we ever start to delete pages because people edit-war, then we're creating an incentive for people to edit-war when they want a page deleted.
508:
is to get some acceptable numbers and information on these crammed into such a list). Remove the 99% abandoned copy, rename the list to "List of religious books", and let those interested in it edit war until the end of time (which, according to some of them, is near anyway ;-) ).
273:: I got here from Fram's talk page. These figures don't seem to be reliable. Mao's figure is incorrect too. There is hardly any scope because this list doesn't cover all books, editors may have cherry picked the listings. There are no actual estimates of Qur'an and Bible.
82:
183:
309:
However, OccultZone makes a decisive point in favour of deletion. Print run figures for the various holy books are not available and will never be available, so the figures given for the top books on the page fail
246:, one of them another religious book with discussion about the author, and one uncontroversial addition. No figures were changed for any book. Meanwhile (in a shorter period, since December 2012),
77:
314:. That's a failure of a core policy which it's impossible to fix: the entries have to be removed. And once you remove the unverifiable entries, all you've got left is a duplicate of the
177:
143:
357:
471:, are you actually calling for a merge? If so, would you change your !vote to that because if we keep the article then merging is often objected to by those who !voted keep.
136:
431:
The idea that we should have a list of the most numerous books which excludes the leading candidates such as the Bible is absurd. If this is a content-fork of the
236:. For the reasons stated by Dougweller. This list was set up as a way to include religious and political books, which are excluded for a number of reasons from the
377:
109:
104:
113:
254:
POV fork, where no one is interested in maintaining the list but some people are using it as the battleground to edit war over religious truth and precedence.
96:
517:
502:
480:
460:
421:
389:
369:
347:
299:
263:
227:
61:
447:
and it seems clear that the total size of the print run is a notable way of doing this. The list should therefore be kept in some form per
198:
330:. But I think we should be clear that this isn't because of user conduct issues, it's because the page can never be policy compliant.—
165:
17:
343:
290:
159:
250:
are the changes to the original list; this means that the list of most-printed books is now not just a POV fork, but an
542:
155:
40:
100:
432:
327:
315:
237:
215:
205:
498:
456:
92:
67:
294:
441:
If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.
538:
486:
171:
36:
490:
405:
494:
476:
468:
452:
339:
286:
223:
191:
409:
448:
436:
243:. Since the end of the previous AfD and today, nearly two years later, only two books were added
417:
385:
365:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
537:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
401:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
472:
331:
274:
219:
513:
444:
259:
57:
311:
413:
381:
361:
307:
User conduct issues should never be a factor in deciding whether to delete a page.
130:
509:
255:
53:
52:. If anyone wants to create a redirect at this title, be my guest.
83:
Articles for deletion/List of most-printed books (2nd nomination)
531:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
247:
244:
241:
126:
122:
118:
190:
204:
404:. I reviewed the edit history. This seems like a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
545:). No further edits should be made to this page.
78:Articles for deletion/List of most-printed books
358:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
376:Note: This debate has been included in the
356:Note: This debate has been included in the
378:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
375:
355:
75:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:
24:
1:
562:
433:list of best-selling books
328:List of best-selling books
316:List of best-selling books
238:List of best-selling books
216:List of best-selling books
214:This is a content fork of
93:List of most-printed books
68:List of most-printed books
518:06:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
503:22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
485:My preference would be a
481:20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
461:18:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
422:16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
390:15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
370:15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
348:14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
300:11:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
264:10:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
228:09:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
62:13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
534:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
73:AfDs for this article:
487:list of popular books
408:on which to hang a
439:, the remedy is "
392:
372:
346:
298:
553:
536:
338:
336:
284:
281:
278:
209:
208:
194:
146:
134:
116:
48:The result was
34:
561:
560:
556:
555:
554:
552:
551:
550:
549:
543:deletion review
532:
332:
279:
276:
151:
142:
107:
91:
88:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
559:
557:
548:
547:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
491:editing policy
445:lists of books
425:
424:
394:
393:
373:
352:
351:
303:
302:
267:
266:
212:
211:
148:
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
558:
546:
544:
540:
535:
529:
528:
519:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
335:
329:
325:
321:
318:. We should
317:
313:
305:
304:
301:
296:
292:
291:Contributions
288:
283:
282:
272:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
232:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
145:
141:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
533:
530:
465:
440:
428:
400:per nom and
397:
333:
323:
319:
308:
275:
270:
251:
233:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
139:
49:
47:
31:
28:
406:WP:COATRACK
178:free images
473:Dougweller
435:then, per
334:S Marshall
220:Dougweller
539:talk page
410:WP:BATTLE
382:• Gene93k
362:• Gene93k
322:and then
37:talk page
541:or in a
449:WP:LISTN
437:WP:CFORK
324:redirect
252:outdated
137:View log
39:or in a
466:Comment
414:SW3 5DL
402:WP:FORK
326:to the
184:WP refs
172:scholar
110:protect
105:history
495:Andrew
469:Andrew
453:Andrew
398:Delete
320:delete
277:Occult
271:Delete
234:Delete
156:Google
114:delete
50:delete
248:these
199:JSTOR
160:books
144:Stats
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
514:talk
510:Fram
499:talk
477:talk
457:talk
429:Keep
418:talk
386:talk
366:talk
312:WP:V
287:Talk
280:Zone
260:talk
256:Fram
224:talk
192:FENS
166:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
58:talk
54:Deor
295:Log
206:TWL
135:– (
516:)
501:)
493:.
479:)
459:)
451:.
420:)
412:.
388:)
380:.
368:)
360:.
293:•
289:•
262:)
226:)
186:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
60:)
512:(
497:(
475:(
455:(
416:(
384:(
364:(
344:C
342:/
340:T
297:)
285:(
258:(
222:(
210:)
202:·
196:·
188:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
158:(
150:(
147:)
140:·
133:)
95:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.