On 5/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
This is one of the known hazards of using purely online references.
The standard - and logical - guideline is to keep them as a record of what sources were used until we can find better ones. As [[WP:CITE]] notes, "When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." An out-of-print book is still fair game, though if you can find a book that's still in print, you'd be an idiot not to use it.
Johnleemk