Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bermuda Triangle source page


 * 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 Merge content to Bermuda Triangle.-- JForget  22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle source page
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory. At best this should be merged into the respective articles. Joelito (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, I never thought I would question an article for being over referenced, but this is nothing but reference. The list of sources belongs on the Bermuda Triangle page. Given that Bermuda Triangle has a tag for additional citations for verification, I think that this move would be welcome. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Czar Brodie. I think that merging this back in the articles is a good idea as well; if someone has relied upon the source for a fact, include it in the citation.  It's a bad precedent to create a "source page" for anything; and it's not as impressive as it might seem at first.  Essentially, it's a list of headlines seen not long after an incident happened.  Flight 19 disappeared on December 5, 1945, so one might as well say newspapers wrote stories about it 2 or 4 days later.  If I have to register on a website to see those articles, then I suppose that I can use search terms and find the news without knowing the headlines.  Mandsford (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge these back into the Bermuda Triangle page. There's no reason for there to be a whole different page for sources. There's a tag on the Bermuda Triangle page for more sources and these seem to be sources so merging these into that page would make alot of sense. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems an excellent idea, to remove all that would clutter the main article, to a separate, and sub-Article. This is not a new idea, it has been suggested in several AFD's prior to this one. A Merge, IMHO, would make the main Article unwieldy and excessively long. (Comment: have those suggesting a merge looked at how long the target of any merge already is?) This page is prominently linked from the Main Article and seems fine to me. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no size limit to articles. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but Article size does outline several size related issues that hinder Article readability. (Please note the "Rule of Thumb" section that I am specifically referring to, and the current size of Bermuda Triangle) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: A simple solution might be to move the page to Bermuda Triangle/Sources and possibly transclude it onto Bermuda Triangle. Or something similar, as it looks like the page could use some trimming and other work to be useful.  Cheers.  lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems a simple and sensible solution, a Move if I understand you correctly. Much better than loosing encyclopedic information altogether. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a list.  The sources cannot be used as they are to directly source content (because we don't know what the sources say, esp. the news articles, or if the sources given are reliable), so merging them doesn't solve the sourcing issue with the main article, which would not have a source list that big anyway - most of that would be "further reading", and what was in the refs would be in much smaller refnote size font. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because "we" (your word, not mine) havent checked the references it is useless, and therfore should be deleted? Your only assuming they havent been checked. On the surface many are to the New York Times & Washington Post, I would tend to think that they are reliable sources and Verifiable. I am not sure what you mean by "...which would not have a source list that big anyway", please explain why? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Bermuda Triangle.--  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, or weak merge to Bermuda Triangle, as lists of newspaper headlines aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. The problem with merging is that it may give the article possibly undeserved authority by implying that its contents have been checked against these sources. -- Jll (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - References do not "clutter the main article"; on the contrary, they are an essential part of it. An unreferenced article is not particularly useful, since anyone is able to write anything at any time (that's the main drawback of a wiki, after all). Only with references can we quickly check whether the content of an article is accurate. Splitting references from their articles only creates a maintenance nightmare. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:13, 1 August 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.