Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArchINFORM


 * 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. ~  c.  tales   \\tk//  04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ArchINFORM
Non-notable website; fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS guidelines. Alexa ranking of 53,849 .--TBC TaLk?!? 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (see below) Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-10 07:04Z 
 * Strong keep. This appears to be a serious academic database project, and a very useful reference for (especially modern) architectural history, which I have seen linked to (and have myself linked to) in Wikipedia articles. It includes a lot of professional photographs and drawings, bibliographies, biographies of architects and notes on individual buildings. It has prominent partners, including the publisher K. G. Saur Verlag and includes biographies from its Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. That a specialized online database has a low Alexa ranking is hardly surprising but completely irrelevant. It also claims (here) to have been covered in major architectural publications, which I have no reason to doubt. up+l+and 07:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: please notice that we even have a template for linking to this website: Template:ArchINFORM. Whatlinkshere shows the many pages that use it in their external links or references. The German Wikipedia (which obviously has an article on ArchINFORM) has a similar template, which is transcluded in many more pages than its English-Wikipedia counterpart. up+l+and 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Being referenced on Wikipedia and being informative are not criterias for notability (see WP:WEB). Also, the link you gave describes architectural magazines that have given the website a review, which falls under trivial coverage ("brief summary of the nature of the content"). By the way, how is the traffic ranking not at least partly relevant to determining a website's notability? After all, traffic ranking is based upon the amount of visitors to a website.--TBC TaLk?!? 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this should be judged in analogy with academic books (see the proposed guideline at Notability (books)), where we would accept a smaller printing run than for, say, a novel. Another criterion for academic books is if the book is "printed by a reputable or well known academic press". This website includes content provided by K. G. Saur, which is one of the most respected academic publishers in the world. If this had been a book, it would probably have been allowed as an academic publication. Including articles on often used reference works and authors, whether in print or online form, is helpful for Wikipedia and its readers. As for the reviews, I don't know if they are just "brief summary of the nature of the content" as I haven't actually seen them. I would, however, argue that a printed academic publication being reviewed in the pertinent academic journals would add to its (and its author's) notability, and see no reason to treat a website differently. up+l+and 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about your analogy. You've stated that the website is notable because it includes content provided from a notable publisher, which is completely different from being published by a notable publisher. Using your analogy, if a newly started wiki had articles from a notable source, the wiki would be notable regardless of how influental or how popular the wiki may be. Also one should note that Notability (books) is still a proposed guideline. --TBC TaLk?!?  15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * K. G. Saur is an official partner (along with some image archives etc) allowing use of its copyrighted material (which is different from just taking stuff from out-of-copyright publications, as Wikipedia does, and as anyone could do). As for Notability (books), I already pointed out above that is just proposed. Are you disputing the general principle of the proposed section on academic books in the proposed guideline? up+l+and 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have clarified your sentence, stating that K. G. Saur is a partner of ArchINFORM, not just a contributor. Also, I'm not disputing the content of Notability (books), I'm simply stating that its still a proposed guideline, thus the criterias may still be in development and not yet represent the majority consensus of the Wikipedian community. Either way, I do admit that the low Alexa ranking might be due to the fact that it's both a foreign and an academic website. --TBC TaLk?!?  01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry TBC, but you are arguing in decreasing circles. This site is very notable indeed.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to check these things out before listing pages here in future, then you won't find yourself having to defend the impossible, which carries the entailed risk of making yourself look rather silly.  Not that I am suggesting you have so far!Giano | talk 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TBC's nomination was fine. The notability of the subject is non-evident to someone outside the field of Architecture, even now (I hope the article will be improved to show notability of the subject, if it is kept).  Nothing inherently wrong or silly-looking with nominating an article that ends up being kept; it happens all the time in good faith. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 20:17Z 
 * Most things are non evident to those that have not studied them - which is why we are building an encyclopedia to broaden horizons not keep them as they are.  The point of a stub, no matter how humble, is that it will grow if given the opportinity Giano | talk 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's all this about "defending the impossible" and "looking rather silly"? Keep in mind that though I may not be completely familiar with the field of architecture, I'm still entitled to have an opinion on architectural related articles and to nominate the article if I feel that the notability is questionable (afterall, this is a discussion). Also, the stub has technically been "given the opportunity" to expand, as its been on wikipedia since January of last year. --TBC TaLk?!? 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There's no article. That's a dictionary entry. Doczilla 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom -- pm_shef 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep An important and well known architectural data base used by thousands of students and architects daily (and me writing Wikipedia articles). Even in its original state the stub was worthy of retention. I'm perplexed by this was considered worthy of listing here. Giano | talk 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Giano. Certainly notable - every architecture student has heard of it. If you're concerned about notablility see how many architecture articles reference it. Indeed wikipedia has it's own template for referencing archinform Template:archINFORM eg. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, convinced by arguments above and also did some web research - seems notable. I guess Alexa rank isn't useful for academic websites. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:19Z 
 * Keep, i agree with quarl. VanHalen 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, for reasons given by Uppland, Giano, and Mcginnly. DVD+ R/W 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per reasons above--Peephole 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The translations from German are abysmal, but the information has already gone into many Wikipedia architectural articles. What could motivate such a proposal for deletion? --Wetman 22:44, 13 August 2006 (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.