Content deleted Content added
→Nova Trex/Wang: Response |
|||
Line 706:
This is in addition to other sources that are problematic, as noted above. Removing these cannot degrade the article because it is their presence that is degrading the article. [[User:Lamona|Lamona]] ([[User talk:Lamona|talk]]) 16:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
:A problem appears to be {{tq|conflating or confusing}} policies. Where the scenario is being presented as if those book links are being used as references for statements or to establish the article's notability, when they are {{tq|'''not'''}}.
:It is easy to see where such a misleading scenario can lead, by comparing the V article to other programming language articles that are using {{tq|further reading}} or {{tq|external links}}. By the misapplication of such logic, an argument could be made to remove all content under further reading or external links on all of Wikipedia. This would also get into "I don't like it" territory ([[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]]).
:Per Wikipedia, {{tq|"Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content"}}. In this case, the article goes the extra step, to place them in the {{tq|further reading}} section. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 00:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||