Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide resources
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian Genocide resources
Wikipedia is not a list links, whether they're books or URLs. References belong in the appropriate articles. --fvw* 19:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Comment Have moved the article from Armenian Genocide ressources to the correct spelling of Armenian Genocide resources. I'll check that all the VfD links are updated accordingly. KeithD (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The ressources section is pretty long in the Armenian genocide section, and many others will be added. As well, there are various cathegory of studies regarding the Armenian genocide, and their relevant books, which will be added. As it is, including this in the Armenian Genocide section, would make of it way too long, only for the ressources. Besides the footnoting is still pending, and once added, it'll increase its size even more. The Holocaust has its section for ressources too, and the only reason I can't work on the ressources section, is because being it included with the Armenian genocide, make of it very limitative. I agree that Wikipedia is not a list, but what do you propose? Fadix 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the resources listed are sources for the armenian genocide article they belong in that article's sources section. It's not a problem if it gets long, wikipedia is not paper. The resources that aren't needed as references there, you shouldn't put a list of them on wikipedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate information repository, just an encyclopaedia. --fvw* 19:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I can't disagree, but if you think you can go and delete sites and references not mentioned in the article in question, go ahead, you'll get a revert war by some that will add them back even when those resources have nothing to do with the article in question. Right now, all I know is that I want to expend the article, and because of it, adding in the resources section the references, which will increase the size of that section, without considering that footnoting will probably take over 1/3 of the articles size. Fadix 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What if, I add it in a sub-page of the article? Somewhere like, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide/resources would that be not considered as part of the article? Fadix 19:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't disagree, but if you think you can go and delete sites and references not mentioned in the article in question, go ahead, you'll get a revert war by some that will add them back even when those resources have nothing to do with the article in question. Right now, all I know is that I want to expend the article, and because of it, adding in the resources section the references, which will increase the size of that section, without considering that footnoting will probably take over 1/3 of the articles size. Fadix 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the resources listed are sources for the armenian genocide article they belong in that article's sources section. It's not a problem if it gets long, wikipedia is not paper. The resources that aren't needed as references there, you shouldn't put a list of them on wikipedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate information repository, just an encyclopaedia. --fvw* 19:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is probably too large for the main article but it's also a useful list of resources. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a useful part of the work on the Armenian genocide, and it is too long to keep in the main article. Perhaps there should be a general rule for where to put bibliographies/resource lists like this. I guess subpages are frowned upon, though.... --Macrakis 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No subpages please. I would prefer this being part of the main page, but I can see that it would make it overly long. Hm. How about some expert removes half of these links (I'm sure some of them are more valuable than others) and merge it back? WP:NOT a web directory. Radiant_>|< 07:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful and informative. Compare Holocaust (resources), created for similar reasons. -- Naive cynic 08:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.