Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information source

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 disambiguate. Please fix (or unlink) the incoming links. BD2412 T 13:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information source

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is 'information source' an encyclopedic subject in light of WP:GNG and such? I couldn't find anything that defines it. There are some indication the term is used in information sciences in an abstract way, but I couldn't find any good definitions, and anyway, this different from what the article tries to do (which is to explain the use of this term in normal English, a laudable goal in general, but currently WP:OR in execution). At best, redirect to Guide to information sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's just a dictdef. Unless sources are found which can give more information, I think it could be turned into a disambiguation page for primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, or deleted (no preference). b uidhe 14:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Information Source" is just a regular English noun phrase. An information source is a source of information. The two references on the page are to definitions of just the word "source", and tie this down to a... well a source - which is all very circular :) The page is against policy: WP:NOT#DICT. I cannot see how an encylopaedic article is possible here.
Delete as a WP:DICTDEF. It's just not a source of much information. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirect reliable source from here to WP:Reliable sources, if that doesn't violate some policy or guideline. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is an appropriate cross-namespace redirect: it could still work in mainspace, and if not, deletion is better than having a "trap door", as the concept of reliable sources is in no way exclusive to Wikipedia. ComplexRational (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as dab Term is too ill-defined to remain a regular article as it is now. Some items that might be listed on a disambiguation page with this name are Information source (mathematics), Information Sources in Law, Book and Informant. StonyBrook (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first entry is an appropriate dab entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Source text, as that article seems to most closely match the intended meaning and goes into detail about information. Alternatively, I would consider redirecting to Information source (mathematics) or even Source (disambiguation) as there are plausible explanations there; in any case, a primary topic should be established, with hatnotes leading to any other reasonable target(s) if a dab is not appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first 2 choices are both equally appropriate targets, which demonstrates why redirecting to either one of them to the exclusion of the other would be incorrect. Source (disambiguation) contains many non-information sources. StonyBrook (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note then that we have a disambiguator for the mathematics article, so I believe that deletion would be inappropriate here. Now the question is, are both really equally apprporiate targets (in which case a dab as you suggest) or can a primary topic be determined? Additional opinions are welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The options that remain on the table are deleting, redirecting (but where to?) or to create a dab page. Can we get a clearer consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dab seems like the most helpful idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 7 February 2020 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.