Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukhara magazine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bukhara magazine

Bukhara magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced, POV, no independent evidence of notability. Could be a legitimate subject, but we can't tell from this article. See also arguments made here. Biruitorul 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete keep. (see comment immediately below) I commented on the associated AfD at this entry; there's one paragraph of material that equates to six typed pages and is duplicated here that is really daunting to examine. The article on the magazine seems to think that it gains notability from the editor, whereas it might be the other way around... the magazine may be notable, but I'm fairly sure the editor isn't. I can't find independent evidence to confer notability, which is not surprising given my English-only language barrier. I would welcome both these articles getting attention from someone with the background and language skills to truly inform a decision. Accounting4Taste 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Great big vote of thanks to DGG for notifying the Iran WikiProject and for taking the pruning shears to this -- it's now possible to see that there's sufficient notability asserted here for me to change what's left of my mind ;-) Accounting4Taste 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Current article seems basically unsalvageable. If the journal turns out to be notable after all, it's probably easier to start a new article from scratch. --Crusio 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Particularly Crusio's "unsalvageable" comment. Pig^man 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The major collection in the subject in the US and UK receive this magazine, according to OCLC, so it may possibly be notable. As for the article, I removed the extraordinary amount of duplication. Expert attention is obviously needed, so I notified the Iran WikiProject. I haver seen very few articles too disorganized to salvage, it mainly takes being BOLD enough to do the necessary cutting. DGG (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per DGG. No cogent reason has been raised to delete this periodical. Espresso Addict 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not understand why this article is considered unsalvageable. It looks like a proper stub to me. In general, we should be more patient with article stubs that can only be verified by foreign language sources or paper sources. There is a lot of knowledge outside the internet.--Yannick 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note: the current version is much different from the one I nominated; DGG has helpfully pruned it down to stub size. Biruitorul 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it perfectly reasonable to have nominated this in its original state.DGG (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Alternatively, the nominator could have edited the article or applied relevant edit tags. Not only are these options, they are required by Wikipedia:deletion policy. Alansohn 06:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - note that prior to DGG's pruning, the article was a copyvio of this. -- Whpq 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article seems to have been salvaged and addresses notability. Great work! Alansohn 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have just worked a bit on this article following DGG's BOLD lead (corrected some English, added internal links, adding/removing misplaced blanks, etc), but I feel that the notability of Bukhara is still not established. The second paragraph seems out of place, too. If this other magazine KELK is notable, it should have its own article. If not, this paragraph should be deleted. If anybody knows of verifiable independent sources establishing notability for either one of these journals, that would be great. Till then I think that I maintain my delete vote given above. --Crusio 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Yannick. M0RD00R 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.