Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Franks
Franks[edit]
- Article is still a Featured article.
Among the last 16 FA's without references. There has been an outstanding request for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. - Taxman Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It has 2 references, "further reading", and it is an important article with many commonly known facts that don't really require references, like for instance the information about charlemagne. Sander 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- No offense, but if you take that argument to WP:NOR or WP:V, you will find the opposite will be upheld. To stay featured, articles need references, and I have yet to be shown a fact that can't be referenced to a high quality source that needs to be in Wikipedia. I also adjusted your vote to say keep, because that's standard and easier to see what your position is. I hope you don't mind. - Taxman Talk 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and there's no evidence the further reading were actually consulted by anyone or used to add or confirm material in the article. If they were they should go in a references section. - Taxman Talk 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Neutralitytalk 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a rule in citation that anything that can be found in several ("several" gets defined different ways by different people, but I tell students that finding the same fact in three locations is sufficient) sources is common knowledge for a person in the field and requires no citation. Where citations are vital are when there is an interpretation of a fact or a fact that is generally inaccessible. If the facts are the sorts of things found in all sources on the Franks, then it is enough to have a bibliography (in the form of a "further reading"). There isn't a great deal of ground breaking or controversial information in the article, so footnoting just to show that you can isn't necessary, IMO. Geogre 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The biggest problem isn't no footnotes, it's no references at all. If you have some high quality references that back up the material, and can confidently say nothing significant conflicts with them, then by all means add them. Along the way why not footnote a couple of the most important points, but this article has no references that support the material in it. But more than that, this nom isn't the place to discuss whether we need references. It's already been decided in the content policies that they are needed. - Taxman Talk 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that we don't need references, and I'm not arguing that this article doesn't need them. I'm arguing that this article is fairly basic and presents material found in virtually every source, and so this case doesn't demand citations. I agree that the authors should put more references in, but I don't agree that it should be FARC'd for that. There is a difference between "should" and "must," here, and I don't think this particular instance crosses the line. You do. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 11:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right, but if you're so confident it represents what is in virtually every source on the subject then add some good general references you have that can support the material. If you're that confident I don't care if there are footnotes or not even if that would be better. But if you can't add references to support the material then we can't have a FA around that has no verifiability. WP:V allows removing all unsourced material which is the whole article currently. That's not acceptable for a FA. - Taxman Talk 04:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that we don't need references, and I'm not arguing that this article doesn't need them. I'm arguing that this article is fairly basic and presents material found in virtually every source, and so this case doesn't demand citations. I agree that the authors should put more references in, but I don't agree that it should be FARC'd for that. There is a difference between "should" and "must," here, and I don't think this particular instance crosses the line. You do. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 11:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The biggest problem isn't no footnotes, it's no references at all. If you have some high quality references that back up the material, and can confidently say nothing significant conflicts with them, then by all means add them. Along the way why not footnote a couple of the most important points, but this article has no references that support the material in it. But more than that, this nom isn't the place to discuss whether we need references. It's already been decided in the content policies that they are needed. - Taxman Talk 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- What? There are currently three banners at the top of the page Talk:Franks. If de-featuring means a fourth banner there, I'm against defeaturing. If it means two of the banners there are both removed, then by all means delete it. (The alternative, to add a few current standard books on the Franks to the References, is apparently unthinkable.) --Wetman 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. It is quite understandable that the editors don't think references are necessary. It happens when one edits article he/she is very sure about. But for the rest of the world, references are needed. I found many places where they are needed and if the editors want, I can put {{citation needed}} wherever applicable. To Wetman, please mention reasons that are a part of the process. The number of banners are no criteria for inclusion/exclusion. If you are interested, I refer you to India...another FA which currently has 10 banners on top of its talk page. It used to have more in the past. Yet, its considered a good FA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Geogre. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)