Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide


 * 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 to Rwandan Genocide with a redirect (See Rwandan Genocide). Please make any appropriate fixes if necessary. -- JForget 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to, this material should be sourced within Rwandan Genocide or deleted. There's no reason to maintain a seperate list of references outside of the article itself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nom. Name of three books do not deserve for a separate article. It should be mentioned in the main article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rwandan genocide, where mentioning books written by/about those caught up in the event would be appropriate. MeegsC | Talk 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rwandan genocide per MeggsC. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles_for_deletion/Joan_of_Arc_bibliography, Articles for deletion/Air pollution dispersion modeling books and others in Category:Bibliographies by subject. WP:CLS should probably provide clearer guidance on bibliographies. This is an important topic and there are more than three books that have covered it; it needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per my argument in the discussion section. The person who says delete because three books (on the rise) do not deserve a separate article may want to consider the relevance of these to the filmography. If these reflections find context within the main-article's political and statistical references there can be no surprise, nor uproar. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep if expanded. I am not happy with these articles; we keep them in article space, but we need some better way of handling them. I think the ideal way is subpages. The only way they can really e justified is as spinouts, and that usually requires a mch larger amount of material than here. DGG (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rwandan genocide. Having this separate seems dysfunctional. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge rather than delete for sure. This is still an expansive thing to include in an article in itself though. I am not sure what the difference is with an article, and a subpage (see above). I thought this is basically what this was, a subsection. Does it really pain Wikipedia to keep subarticles within articles. Is it not their context which qualifies the Wiki pages as articles, subarticles, subpages...? I suppose it is a sort of non article though. As long as the content is kept I dont really care. If it is on the main article page or if it gets its own. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rwandan Genocide. I don't see how this is a "how to" but I agree with the nominator that this material has a place in the Rwandan Genocide article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:01, 16 April 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.