This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
I have removed the Notability template. John Brown's raid was a major factor in causing the American Civil War to start when it did. There is no dispute about this, to my knowledge. There are so many sources, of differing value, than an annotated list is, I hope, useful. The material in this list was removed from John Brown's raiders, where it was too long. deisenbe (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the notability of the raid, I doubt the notability of this list of sources. If material is too long for an article, it may need trimming as excessive detail, not simply moving it to a new article. Fram (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, IMHO, a very bold series of edits, which I endorse without knowing why. I do think there may be some editors who have in good faith legitimate concerns about calling this a "list" or a group of "sources". The page itself is well-sourced with RS. But this article is not an hour old, so I think it's reasonable to give the page creator some rope as the page is developed or possibly even renamed. I'd say it's early to limit User:Deisenbe's options. I suggest we give the editor some trust and some time. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page isn't really well-sourced at all, each entry is sourced to itself (with one or two exceptions), not to a source about either the topic as a whole or the individual entry here. I did and do intend to give the editor some time, that's why I simply tagged it for notability instead of nominating it for deletion or redirecting it. We have a few "bibliography" articles, but these are generally about much wider topics (say, WWII or the Civil War as a whole), and are for secondary sources. Fram (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
