Andrew Gray wrote:
And nary an inclusion debate in the lot.
I agree that most things won't draw such a debate, and even if a lot of the articles proposed for deletions really are deletable there is still that small obsessive group determined to preserve our "bodily humours" in the manner of Dr. Strangelove. They need to be more sensitive to the efforts of others, and to understand that many of these most bitter disputes are not about what's in the articles, but about a small group that wants to control the work of others.
On the matter of completeness... a while back I bought a 1907 copy of Chambers' Biographical Dictionary, a massive collection of - well, {{bio-stub}}s. Repeatedly looking in it at random has so far turned up exactly two people who we didn't have articles already, and both of them we had as redlinks.
I have several of these myself, including Allen's "American Biorgaphical Dictionary" from 1857, Lippincott's Gazeteer from 1872, and three different editions of Haydn's Book of Dates. That's a lot of fascinating material, but the ambition that I felt when I bought these volumes is not matched by the time that I have to do anything about them. :-)
Ec