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. Notability seems established, argument can continue about the title. Fences&Windows 23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brusselization[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Brusselization"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Term appears to be made up, having no sources attesting to its existence. Article should be deleted before the existence of this article results in seemingly legitimate use arises from it. Louiedog (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Bruxellisation. This appears to be a case of well meaning but misleading anglicization. As the fr.wikipedia article demonstrates, the term is bruxellisation (or for some reason BruXellisation) is used in exactly that meaning. I see several references to it in English-language books. Here from 2006. However, the English term appears to be used only for bureaucratizing central control with reference to the European Union: Brusselisation from 2010, Brusselization from 1999, both referring to a 1998 article by David Allen of Loughborough University, "Who Speaks for Europe? The Search for an effective and coherent External Policy". There appear to be ample references for Bruxellisation to meet the notability criterion; I didn't even have to go past English-language uses. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 15. Snotbot t • c » 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references in the article - currently article is cleary WP:OR violation. Per comment above, if it is used to refer to the European Union in a few English articles, that is even more justification for it to be deleted on notability grounds. Just because an article appears on French wiki does not mean it should on English wiki. Connolly15 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you misunderstand. The article is wrongly titled - the title it is at refers to something else. I'm quite prepared to reference it up, move it, point the existing title somewhere else, and stick a hatnote at the top, but moving an article while it's at AfD is Not Done. There are plenty of refs establishing the notability of Bruxellisation (and the accuracy of teh article). What's inaccurate is the title. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies if I have misunderstood, but when I made this comment originally the article had no references or sources provided. The existing title should definitely be pointed to somewhere else... maybe just European Union given that a quick English book search comes up exclusively with references to the EU (except for the current Wikipedia article of course). Hopefully sooner rather than later. Connolly15 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. It would be pointless to add sources now because the article is misnamed. Brusseliz/sation is used with a completely different meaning. It has to be moved to Bruxellisation or the sources will be inapplicable. See my initial keep rationale. There are plenty of sources in English using both terms, but they mean different things. If this just keeps getting relisted I'll invoke IAR and just demonstrate by moving, rewriting, and referencing. But a move would lose the AfD template and be confusing to anyone who may want to participate here. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two pennies for the pot. I'm not familiar enough with this concept to know which spelling is more correct — however, as this discussion seems to be bogging down over WP:UE, I thought it worth adding a bit of clarification nonetheless. The thing is that the policy does not require us to give every topic a title that's worded and spelled in English; rather, it requires us to name pages with whatever can be demonstrated to be the actual name of the topic in actual real world English usage. The standard example I always give is the Canadian political party called the Parti Québécois: even though the words in that name are spelled in French rather than English, the party does not actually have an official English name, and the standard usage in English is the untranslated name "Parti Québécois". With the result being, of course, that any anglicised version of the name would be unattested and unknown in the real world, and hence would run afoul of Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research — so even though the individual words are in French instead of English, the name as a whole is entirely consistent with WP:UE since it's how the party is actually named in actual English usage.
Accordingly, the same principle has to be applied here: we need to determine which spelling, ss or x, is actually attested in urban studies literature as the actual name of this specific concept, and use that spelling regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the usual English language spelling for the city of Brussels itself. Again, I'm not offering a !vote one way or the other, as I'm unfamiliar with the topic — but on policy grounds, it's a question of which spelling is actually attested in the actual literature. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or we could pay attention to the article we're supposed to be discussing, which cites a dictionary (State 2004) giving Brusselization, the current title of the article, as the English spelling. It's only the very first source for the article. The second source (Stubbs & Makaš 2011) gives the English Brusselization followed by the French and the Dutch.
  Yes, Connolly15's rationale above is now wrong. No-one, it seems is watching and reading the article, not even the nominator. Almost nothing above is based upon the article at hand, or even the subject at hand, let alone its sources and any potential sources. Raise your hands, anyone in this discussion, who has actually made the effort to look for what sources exist on this subject (as opposed to much of the above which is discussing some ill-defined, slang named, other subject).
  My searches turn up things like doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.007 as the very first result on Scirus. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aha, the article has been substantially rewritten and sources added. I still think it needs to be moved to Bruxellisation (over the redirect someone created after I posted my initial statement), because the English term is being used in a very different sense in political science and I found several uses of the French term (the x spelling) in English-language sources. I am also not sure where the obviously needed hatnote should point; we don't seem to have any mentions of David Allen or his article. But definitely a keep; the rewrite has demonstrated the notability that my search found, as well as the accuracy of the content. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (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.