Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCconnex

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 merge to GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCconnex[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A governments generic internal platform isn't notable, as is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that all of these articles — GCconnex (AfD discussion), GCpedia (AfD discussion), and GCcollab (AfD discussion) — all start with a sentence of the form "X is a GCtools platform" and it is GCtools, which we do not have an article about, that is the actually notable thing, having (for just one example) 10 pages devoted to it in Clarke 2019, pp. 131 et seq.. I like to think that were we doing this properly, we'd have an article at GCtools and all of these would redirect to it. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarke, Amanda (2019). Opening the Government of Canada: The Federal Bureaucracy in the Digital Age. UBC Press. ISBN 9780774836951.

Uncle G I have some concerns that a book written in 2019 can establish notability for articles that have been rotting for a decade and I am more concerned that the mention in the book is circular and taken from WP as opposed to a random independent publisher seeking out the information themselves. Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UBC Press is an academic publisher, so there's no actual prospect of the book representing circular referencing — the quality of the writing in these articles would never pass muster in a piece of academic literature, an academic publisher would never let a footnote that cited Wikipedia through the editorial process without demanding changes, and it's hard to see how an academic writer could even extract ten pages worth of content out of what little substance or depth our articles about these topics actually contain. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GCpedia and GCcollab into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the UBC book and the additional sources that have been proffered in the GCpedia deletion discussion, we've got enough sources to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GCpedia and GCcollab. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.