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 delete. Fails WP:SYN, cannot find the term in any WP:RS L Faraone 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding national myths and symbols

[edit]

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

Neologistic name for a non- (or not-yet-) notable branding concept or theory. No identifiable Google results or independent coverage of this concept. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a search tool doesn't match "Branding National Myths and Symbols" anywhere in the body of Sitki's thesis certainly lends weight to the conclusion that contrary to the article no field of research with that name is defined by xem. The thesis abstract at the NLA gives no indication of an intent to define a new field of research, either. Uncle G (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument below has satisfied the one concern that I had that was holding off a decision. I suspected that 121.127.204.107 (talk · contribs) might have been Sitki xyrself, and that the apparently false statements in the article about this field of research, that is not in fact defined by the source cited, were rather Sitki's further extension of xyr ideas (which wouldn't have been acceptable here without publication, of course). Clearly 121.127.204.107 is not Sitki. And both that and xyr handwaving below, trying to evade the point that no such field of research as this has in fact been defined at all, by Sitki or by anyone else, has convinced me that the outcome here should be delete. This quite clearly is improper novel synthesis being done directly in Wikipedia itself, as evident from the arguments made by 121.127.204.107. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with edits/wikification :-) I feel the theoretical basis for the term 'Branding national myths and symbols' can not be rejected simply because it does not show up on a Google search. A major portion of peer reviewed research is not published in a form that that makes it easily amenable to internet searching. Research of the concepts and theories of 'Branding national myths and symbols' (BNMS) have been researched and published. The title 'Branding national myths and symbols' describes the overarching concept of the research and not the exact title of any particular paper. See the following link to Deakin University, http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/view/DU:30027456 where the PhD thesis 'Myths, symbols and branding : Türkish national identity and the EU' researches the concept and components of BNMS extensively. The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9
The title of the thesis includes the phrase 'Myths, Symbols and Branding' and the words 'national identity', I don't believe you can argue that every wikipedia article title should exactly match a name or phrase from a particular reference but rather it should concisely communicate the intention of the article.
If you have any suggestions to reference the material in a manner that will be suitable for a wikipedia entry as well as any editing that is applicable to the text, then please make them.
I believe the concepts and information contained in the article make a worthwhile contribution on the subject.
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to UncleG
The National Library of Australia does not have a copy of the thesis in paper or electronic form, they only have the abstract details, so it is no surprise that you can't find a match.
David Cameron
Query to Jimmy Pitt and A Macedonian, a Greek
Do you have any suggestions concerning the referencing and textual content of the article, it is difficult know where alterations need to be made without some reference point. :-)
David Cameron
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-22 05:57:42
- I didn't use the NLA to perform the fulltext search on the paper, kid. Notice the word "either", there. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query to UncleG

Please advise how you determined that 'Branding National Myths and Symbols' was not present within the body of Sitki's thesis?

David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I could find on Sitki's thesis is this, where Hatice Sitki: Myths, Symbols and Branding: Turkish National Identity and the EU is listed under Postgraduate students by Research. I doubt this meets WP:RS standards... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to A Macedonian, a Greek

The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.48 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found, see WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (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.