Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of family separation research articles


 * 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The result of the debate was keep as delete rationale is no longer valid. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of family separation research articles
Collection of external links. Delete. Melchoir 12:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links. (Exception: (if they happen to be the reference material for an article split out because of size). - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Eye 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand List items should not be just links, as wikipedia is not a link farm. However, research items can easily have well formed citations, and they should. As of note, family seperation related links at times may seem like spam, but they are very useful and encylopediac. I suggest to review the links and see if they are spam, like if they lead to an ad-supported site with information that can be found elsewhere without ads. Family law related topics easily get unbalanced from npov because some wikipedians delete non governmental related information, which excludes one party of the two sides of the respective pov. &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this proposal. Expand how? Melchoir 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare the top section to the bottom section. The top section should be more like the bottom section. The top section is mainly links as you have nom'd. Your nom is untrue for the bottom section. Either way, it can be expanded further for family law resource. Give more information like when was such report or citation made, the title of such report, why was the report done, and more questions one could ask if the link dissapears. If you still want to delete the article, then move such research back to their original pages. &mdash;  Dz on at as  01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "why was the report done" does have some encyclopedic value, but that makes the page sound like a References section in search of an article. Melchoir 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned at Talk:List of family separation research articles, it was the intention that each article should have a précis, though I don't think much has been done on that front. My feeling is that, whatever people say wikipedia is and is not, links to bona fide research are always useful. If this article appears as a list of references waiting for an article - and the list was originally moved out of an article following someone's comment a while back - then why remove information which could be useful? There are 6 other articles which link to the article, so presumably it acts as a list of references, or related material, for their benefit. It seems a pity to delete this for no particular reason. My other preference would be to move it. Matt Stan 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in current form. Pn. Dan 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jim62sch 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the request to delete still valid if I go and change the article to make it different from what it was when the deletionist arrived? That's what I'm doing anyway, changing the list into a series of paragraphs, explaining a bit about each article - though in fact most of the titles are fairly self-explanatory - in the hope that it will invalidate all the other deletionists' votes above, since you wouldn't then be deleting that which had originally been proposed. Down with deletionists! I say. They would spend their time better actually doing some of the donkey work, rather than exercising officious power with no responsibility! :-) Matt Stan 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you can improve it while it is under AfD. &mdash;  Dz on at as  01:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep in its current form. Turnstep 23:48, 7 January 2006 (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.