- Bookland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In the AfD, there was one argument for deletion due to lack of notability (mine), two arguments to merge due to lack of notability, one 'argument' to keep which was completely unsubstantiated despite significant dialogue, and one argument too keep which provided one or two vaguely reliable sources. The closing admin's statement observed that the "need for more independent and reliable sources to establish notability [is] noted, and it appears that other editors are locating those." However, not a single third party reliable source has been added to the page before or since: since it is completely devoid of such, it transparently fails the general notability guideline, and I therefore consider the decision to have been misguided, and I wonder whether we should consider changing it? (The closing admin advised me to bring the issue to this forum.) ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'm unclear why the sources provided are only vaguely reliable. The one I can fully read [1] is an academic journal and provides significant coverage. Could you explain your issue with it? That no one has added the material to the article is non-ideal, but we don't delete things based on the current state of the article. If it offends then you, like everyone else, are welcome to add the sources to the article. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the article is justified, and I agree that no further refs are really needed. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me which sources meeting the GNG are currently in the article? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage" (emphasis added). It doesn't say the current article needs have said coverage in it... Hobit (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So please point me towards the "significant coverage" which the topic has received. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD has a number of sources. One I specifically mention in my !vote above [2]. That is easily significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail." The only direct reference to Bookland as a concept (as opposed to the EAN as a concept) is the following passage: Their efforts resulted in what came to be known as the "Bookland EAN" bar coding standard, which gets its name for what may appear to be an unusual reason. "Since the book industry produces so many products", [sic] a trade source explains, "it has been designated as a country unto itself and has been assigned its own EAN prefix. That prefix is 978 and it signifies Bookland, that wonderful, fictitious country where all books come from". [sic] This is clearly not significant coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is certainly more. Extended quote placed on talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [3] is also significant coverage, [4] has a whole page. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse although, keep in mind you can still merge it if you feel like it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion was not an option given the !votes, and merge is still a valid editorial option not needing AfD/DRV oversight. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Existence of reliable sources was shown in the AfD, and therefore the closing admin was correct not to delete it, even if those sources haven't yet been copied into the article. (This, of course, doesn't preclude a merge to EAN.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse, as I did not know about this and it is interesting. he he. Turqoise127 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-The close was a valid interpretation of the consensus. As others have mentioned above, the fact that this close doesn't proscribe a merge doesn't preclude one, especially if consensus for that action exists.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The close was valid, no view on a merge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have gone for a no-consensus closure myself, but it has an equivalent outcome. Per others above, you can still merge. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|