Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic resources

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia:Academic resources. Eugene van der Pijll 11:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Academic resources

This is not an organised list of academic resources, just a random list of stuff taken from a user page. The first edit comment was "Help me edit this, its a useful list that I saw from User:172" TreveX^talk 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a useful list. Organize and move into Wikipedia namespace. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is far too broad and consists of nothing but links. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. ♠ DanMS 02:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Keep, but make a short list of lists, pointing to List of Encyclopedias, List of Academic Journals, etc. Ideally, that would preserve usefulness and make it maintainable. Jkelly 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit as per Jkelly Dlyons493 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedia namespace. Is useful to encourage the citation of sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sections as proposed within article, and then delete shell. CLW 11:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recycled, duplicate material. Duplicate material is deleted. Again, if an author wants to create a namespace helpful list, that's fine, but maybe user:172 could do it. That has nothing to do with this, though. Further, an "article" with nothing but links is a speedy deletion candidate. Geogre 21:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the sections as per the merger notices is not particularly useful. The external links to encyclopaedias are not as useful in encyclopaedia as the far larger list of internal links that is already in that article is. The same goes for the other sections. There is nothing useful in Jkelly's proposal that this be edited into list of lists, as the only thing that connects those lists together is the task of building an encyclopaedia, exactly what we have the project namespace for. This may be a useful companion to Wikipedia:cite sources and Wikipedia:reliable sources in the project namespace, best placed as a "resources" sub-page of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards I think, but it does not belong in the main article namespace. As per MacGyverMagic and Purplefeltangel, rename and delete the redirect. Uncle G 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a collection of links, and this material is widely available anyway. Also, many of these links are to subscription databases, and I do not think wikipedia pages (particularly in the main namespace!) should link to things that won't be accesible to most readers. Chick Bowen 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. Just copy the links and paste them wherever if you think they're useful. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, certainly, if they're useful to anyone, she's welcome to put them in her own user space. Note that the whole list is available at User:172. Chick Bowen 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup (or possibly merge) not delete ··gracefool |☺ 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of links ia not encyclopedic. Could exist in Wikipedia namespace. Paul August ☎ 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.