Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloom


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gloom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating on behalf of User:82.132.242.60. Reason given was "the page is purely synthesis and a definition of a word. Gloom is not a notable concept".  F ASTILY s  (TALK) 11:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. This seems redundant to darkness.  Portions of this are actually superior to Darkness, and as such are worth preserving. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gloom is not darkness. It is a dim light with a specific physiological basis as explained by the source "The physiological basis for the sensation of gloom. Warden (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gloom is both an ambient lighting condition and an emotion, and there are serious scientific works linking the twain. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per Smerdis. Either move dab page here or redirect to Gloom (disambiguation). Keep per discussion below. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The topic is obviously notable per the WP:GNG as it is the subject of independent, reliable sources such as "The physiological basis for the sensation of gloom and Gloom as a psychophysical phenomenon. No specific synthetic proposition is detailed and so that is just name-calling unsupported by logic or evidence.  The nomination seems quite improper in several respects: the authors of the article were not notified;  there was no talk page discussion; and there's a history of disruption of this article being harassment by the banned sockmaster Claritas.  Nominations on behalf of banned users are obviously improper per WP:BAN and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK#2. Warden (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Colonel Warden, except for the "Speedy" part and the propriety of the nomination. Fastily wasn't acting in bad faith, but a quick look at Special:Contributions/82.132.242.60 does strongly indicate that xe was duped into this nomination by a vandal.  Researching the subject, I see things like  in addition to what Colonel Warden has turned up.  Yes, this appears to be two concepts, that serious scientific research has studied and linked.  There's probably stuff to say on the subject from a literary analysis viewpoint, too, although I've only given that a cursory look.   wrote about the 18th century "literature of Gloom", for example, and  espouses a gloom thesis in Australian literature that others have picked up (e.g. ).
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to support notability as an optical condition, and also as a psychological effect arising from or analogous to that condition. And it's not the same as darkness, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to support notability as an optical condition, and also as a psychological effect arising from or analogous to that condition. And it's not the same as darkness, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. An article this size with tons of references (all good ones) makes it clearly notable. Notability is established, along with reliable sources given. The term "gloom" as mentioned above, is distinct from darkness. Tinton5 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2012 (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.