Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources for John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry


 * 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 keep. ✗ plicit  12:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

List of sources for John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:Listcruft. I don't see the need in an article like this. The raid is surely notable but this would likely just be better as a redirect to John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry or a similar section wizzito &#124; say hello!  09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This 30K article should not be added to the 109K article. Valid split off article.  We're an encyclopedia, we have no limit of space, this is something people studying history can make use of.   D r e a m Focus  10:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT into an actual article about contemporary accounts of the raid and not a list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (that is, a summary of knowledge), not a bare list of primary sources, which are great references but not sufficient standalone material for an article. Primary sources with minimal encyclopedic context belong in “see also” sections and Wikisource. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is quite an interesting article, the scope is obvious and not OR. The topic is self-contained, and it is well sourced. Definitely worth having as an article. If anything there should be more "list of sources" articles for specific historical events when the scope is clear enough and there are only so many primary sources. Rauisuchian (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lean Keep. This is an interesting article, with some issues that need to be addressed. However, I don't support deleting it as the topic is self-contained and well sourced. Just need some formatting changes. The man from Gianyar (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Huh. This looks a bit unusual, but it's not a bad idea. The focal event is clearly notable, and the criteria for inclusion are decently clear, so there aren't really any problems with having this list around. And we do have lists of primary sources; List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein is even featured, for example. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is an exceptional case. We have a long substantial article on the raid.   I have grave doubts as to whether an article discussing the historiography of the subject belongs in WP.  It might be appropriate in an academic journal, but not here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I removed this list from the article to shorten it. It is today 109K. The list is 30K. deisenbe (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPINOUT. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.