Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic article


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. The early delete opinions, in particular, were given before sources were added. Note that the content has since been forked to Electronic journal; this will have to be addressed. Sandstein 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Electronic article


I am posting this for deletion at the request of User:DGG. An attempt has previously been made to merge this with Scientific paper in October 2004, but been reverted by said user, and he/she has been behaving proprietorial over the article when I recently tried to boldly redirect it to Electronic document. There is absolutely "Sweet FA" in the title which could even hint at it having the very specific meaning which is attributed to it by User:DGG, and certainly no sources to back up "his/her" definition. Therefore I move to delete this a either is a non-notable neologism or as otherwise failing WP:V. Ohconfucius 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, because we already have the Electronic document and Scientific paper articles, so there's no need for this article. Doesn't contain any sources either. Jayden54 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Stebbins 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Jayden. -- Kicking222 00:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the more recent of the significant authors. The content of this is different from electronic document, because which is a very general article indeed, not even discussing electronic journal articles, and [scientific paper]] is also more general by far--this could be considered their intersection.
 * Move to Electronic journal. This is a widely used term for which there is no article, and would enable discussion of the publication of and subscription to these journals as well as the articles within. GUllman 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I appeared to act in a proprietary manner. I was somewhat surprised that the article was converted into a redirect without any preliminary discussion on the article's talk page. I asked Ohconfucius to instead propose it for deletion in the customary manner if he thought that was appropriate so it could be discussed properly, and he quite correctly did so. Would anyone care to comment on the protocol & courtesy for replacing an article with a redirect?

And it was not I who was involved in the 2004 discussion--I had not yet started at WP

There are also a number of ways to remind people who have neglected to insert sources that they should do so, including a comment on the article talk page, which is there for such purposes.

There does seem to be a recommendation at Articles for Deletion that an article should be improved, or improvements suggested as an alternative. A simple Google search would show that the term is standard in a library context: the first page alone has 4 relevant hits, so it is clearly not a personal neologism. .

As an example of what can & should have been done, I have edited the article to put in a few of the many references at the bottom. Not having an article I've been interested in go through this process before, I am unsure about the etiquette and have therefor put them in a separate section at the end, not inline, I appreciate the effort made to induce me to do this, but going directly to AfD seems somewhat drastic.DGG 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I have now done so. There are 3 refs, 2 general external links, and 7 links to notable specific services, many of which already have WP articles. I think that shows notability, specific meaning, and sources. Revised: DGG 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I apologise for being a bit fast in sending it to AfD instead of asking you to justify your stance, but AfD is only a debate. Please refer to WP:BOLD for editing protocol. After looking at the references supplied as well as of my own searches, I'm still unsure about the specificity of the term "electronic article" because of its generic use. Although you have clearly demonstrated that it has been employed to refer to a library for scientific articles NEAR, but AFAICT it also covers other non-scientific journals. Less specific uses I have found on searches include BEARS at Brown University uses it to refer to catalogue of articles on Moral and political philosophy, whereas the Columbia Law review invites contributors to submit their articles electronically for publication, and other prominent hits refer to the electronic article surveillance - protection afforded to shops agains shoplifting. Ohconfucius 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the use for Electronic article surveillance is a different use in a different field, since 2005 a separate WP article & I'm adding a disambig. note on both pages. -- I never knew about it till it came up on Google. As for Electronic article, is does indeed refer to articles in any and all subjects, which is why it doesn't fit well under scientific paper. I will clarify that. You are right that discussions such as this are helpful, wherever held. DGG 00:28, 28 November 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.