Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic electrodynamics bibliography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Consensus is to delete. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stochastic electrodynamics bibliography
Contested prod. Article is a long bibliography for a fringe-y physics topic; main article on this topic has a perfectly acceptable short bibliography. Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:UNDUE. Bm gub (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete the article covering this topic exists, and has plenty of references. If all these references were worked into the article, that would be a good thing, but a that's no rationale for keeping a list of them as a separate article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nominator: Wikipedia is not a repository for every book on stochastic electrodynamics. Perhaps some can be used to flesh out the main article, but the rest are superfluous. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We really need a general discussion on where to put articles of this type--there are a number of others. Until we have a suitable general way of handling, we should keep this one. DGG (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to such discussions? Or at the very least, links to a few others that we could take a look at? Unless this is shown to be a big issue, I think we should handle this case in isolation and later generalize the decision if necessary. I support being bold and deciding now, rather than putting certain AFDs on hold. If consensus changes such articles can always be restored. FYI: I propose merging useful references into the main article and discarding the rest. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Copy to Wikisource. I just checked, and there are many bibliographies there. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wikisource bibliographies are PD copies of works published elsewhere, or are incidental to the works--not stand alone like this one. Other examples: Phage monographs, Neuro-linguistic programming bibliography, Historical Bibliography of OMF International, Bibliography of the Western Apache, Bibliography of Nicaragua and I think about 50 or so others. ; (many of the items if one searches under bibliography in the WP search box are however lists of works by an author, for which there is consensus if they exceed the bounds of an article). I think therse are useful, but they are very rarely articles. FWIW, Citizendium has a subpage for such material for each article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then we are left with merging or deleting. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikisource bibliographies are PD copies of works published elsewhere, or are incidental to the works--not stand alone like this one. Other examples: Phage monographs, Neuro-linguistic programming bibliography, Historical Bibliography of OMF International, Bibliography of the Western Apache, Bibliography of Nicaragua and I think about 50 or so others. ; (many of the items if one searches under bibliography in the WP search box are however lists of works by an author, for which there is consensus if they exceed the bounds of an article). I think therse are useful, but they are very rarely articles. FWIW, Citizendium has a subpage for such material for each article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
