Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncorrected proof


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncorrected proof

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested ProD: Cleaned up and pruned a major WP:COI page that was basically comprised (four out of five paragraphs) of spam. Once the spam was removed, all that was left was a dictionary definition for what is likely a neologism. The term is only referenced in a couple of trivial sources (one of which is a dead link) and has been found in use by a single company. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not really a neologism, but definitely a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've marked the reference link to 'myfirsteditions.com' as a dead link, since the site is not functional. This leaves us with just one link, to the privately-operated web site http://www.ioba.org, which is not a reliable source. The claim that it is a 'standard publishing industry term' is unsupported. There is no good evidence distinguishing uncorrected proofs from Galley proofs. The present article claims, without evidence, that galley proofs are unpaged, while our article on that topic does not say so. Why should we provide an article if we have no reliable sources to verify the definition? EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Uncorrected proof, Advance copy, and Galley proof. Leave two of them as redirects as they are probable search terms. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Galley proof, as they share many of the same information. Cheers.  I 'mperator 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would object to a merge if no reliable sources can be found. Otherwise we are (potentially) just making things up. It's not so much a notability problem as a verifiability problem. Galley proof has problems as a merge target. It is completely unsourced! People would be better off using the dictionary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're saying Galley proof should go to Wiktionary? - 2 ... says you, says me 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, looks worthwhile, and it does contain some longer articles that are more than dicdefs. But lack of sources is a problem! Maybe somebody could try using the 1911 Britannica to fix up those articles in the category that have no sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge What we really need is a new article specifically about book proofs in general, or perhaps printing proofs. These side terms can all redirect to that. Delete (until an appropriate article can be created) or merge (to one of the others along the same lines that needs improvement) would both be acceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider a merge per LinguistAtLarge. Here's a useful source that could help with all of the articles he lists, whether or not they are merged. JulesH (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While your link is interesting, it is just a blog posting by Matt Gerber. So it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this theory that blogs are never reliable sources comes from, it certainly isn't supported by WP:V or WP:RS. In this case, the blog is run under the editorial control of Tor Books, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers, and therefore is as a reliable source on publishing and science-fiction related content. JulesH (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There's an immense amount of material on the various stages of printing both currently and historically. Hoe to arrange them needs a discussion elsewhere DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and move Galley proof, Advance reading copy, and Uncorrected proof should be merged under the title Proof (publishing) with redirects. There may or may not be sufficient referenced material in the future to justify separate articles.  All of them seem more complicated than a dictionary definition and have overlapping definitions or loose definitions in practice.  Drawn Some (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then let's merge. DGG and Drawn are correct; this topic as a whole is important enough. For now, I think Linguist's idea is best--one article and two redirects is an invitation to build the article; deletion is not. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2009 (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.