Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dubious historical resources

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 04:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of dubious historical resources

 * Deletion - Strong POV bias, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Discussion page of article has already had initial discussion of deletion based on this bias- eleuthero 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- POV list - Longhair | Talk 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This information belongs on the pages of the works in question with explanation of why they are dubious. (If the article is kept, should we add Wikipedia to it?) --Xcali 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Noting dubious historical resources is not a bad idea, but the items mentioned don't belong together. Livy's histories, for example, were not journalism in the modern sense, but more like docu-dramas, and were relatively accurate by that standard.  A historical source that was biased or fraudulent by the standards of its time would be noteworthy. Peter Grey 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete All historical sources are "dubious," in the sense that they should all be regarded with a healthy skepticism. Beyond that, any comparative exercise is unsalvagably POV.  Xoloz 06:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep although a renaming to a better title might be in order. This is mostly a list of items which are not widely accepted by historians, and such a concept is valid. Looking at the page history, I see that this list used to include such items as the joke history book 1066 and All That. Incidentally, there is a good chance that there is a better version somewhere in the pages history. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite Whether to trust a source is an important part of history that deserves its own article.  If this is rewritten from that perspective, with the list just being a section of the article, (with at least one line of explanation for each,) then it will become a useful article. Sonic Mew 13:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to deal with the topic you suggest, perhaps as a subsection under Historical research, or as a point of interest in the History or Historian articles. To convert this article to such content, though, it would essentially need to be totally rewritten and renamed.  This might as well be deleted, in other words, because, although your concept is related to this one, there is virtually nothing useful to be transferred.  Xoloz 18:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Asking to be abused, POV. DJ Clayworth 14:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, runs counter to 'citing sources'. And POV. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The list is inherently POV. That's enough to kick it out.  However, it is up to each author to indicate when there are doubts about a source used in an article.  While I might well agree with the dubiousness of X or Y on this list, I can also go into any article that cites one of them and indicate the nature of the doubts about its validity.  The List serves no vital function and cannot be rid of POV. Geogre 16:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure POV. Who determines if a source is dubious or not?  There are historians that would put the Bible in this list. Gorrister 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Inherently POV, or one thing, but for another all historical sources have bias and are "dubious". --Scimitar 19:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Works of ancient historians not usually relied on for accuracy or something better or Merge with some other details into Works of ancient historians or something better named. The History of the Kings of Britain is very definitely regarded as unreliable, partly because it includes roman emporers with highly inaccurate family trees.     21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the resources listed here are obviously unreliable, although this list may be very difficult to NPOV. You (Talk) 22:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to meta. Quoting myself from the Talk page: "It would be far more on-topic (& less controversial) there. In any case, I would regret it were this piece of Wikipedia history to be lost." I haven't actively defended my position there because attention to this outdated page comes & goes. -- llywrch 00:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV.  The victors write the history books.  One person's dubious resources are another person's trusted resources and vice-versa.  It's not Wikipedia's place to tell people which is which.  Kaibabsquirrel 05:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if cleaned up. Useful list. JamesBurns 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and perhaps rename. There are a fair number of plausible historical facts for which Herodotus, the Old Testament, the Qur'an, or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are the principal source; and often, the original and sometimes the only source.  I tend to agree that doubts about their historicity ought to be discussed at the articles in chief, and that the list should limit its editorializing to criteria for inclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV. mikka (t) 04:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.