Wikipedia:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Home Home   Notice board Notice board   Discussion Discussion   Requests Requests   To-do To-do   Members Members   Templates Templates   Help & tools Help & tools   Network Network  

Nominations

FA Featured article

  • None at present

GA Good article

  • None at present

Issues

Bot deletion alerts

Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Requested moves

Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec

Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Changement Intégrité pour notre Québec" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable political party lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's non-notable is not a very good point because other small political parties have pages, like the Parti_nul or the Parti_équitable --Di123 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referencing improvement is certainly still needed here, but there are already enough reliable sources present to cover off the basic notability question. The notability test for a political party is not having actually won seats in a legislature, but is passed by any party — major or minor doesn't matter — that is registered with the appropriate electoral registrar and referenceable to something other than purely primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Scrapes by WP:NORG for now per sources in article, having only been around for one election cycle. Given their candidates' nonzero showings last election, it's a pretty safe bet that another few profiles this summer and fall will make them unambiguously notable. FourViolas (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Irene Tomaszewski

Irene Tomaszewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Irene Tomaszewski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator. She has a great personal story, but the reliable source coverage just isn't there. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - per my comment above. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, she doesn't appear to satisfy GNG or AUTHOR, and I was unable to find good sources. In fact, none of the sources cited could be treated as independent, thus precluding any notability-conferring weight. When searching, I did find four mentions in The News-Item, but mostly trivial coverage. BEFORE found nothing else. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment : Unless I miss my mark, there is no article on this subject in the Polish-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The references here are doing nothing to establish her notability at all — they're all either primary sources, or pieces of her own writing. But a person does not get over WP:GNG by being the author of reliable source coverage of other things; she gets over GNG by being the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. The sources here simply aren't cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Borderline passes WP:NAUTHOR - has authored several books, including in English, and they are being cited (just click Google Scholar link at the top of the AfD). Few dozen citations in total, according to GScholar. Borderline, yes, but I lean on the inclusionist side here. PS. The article creator has not been notified of this AFD, a technical oversight that should require relisting after the notification. PPS. Since the author is currently topic banned from commenting here, if this is deleted, I will pre-emptively ask on their behalf to userfy it for them in their userspace so they have an option to improve it in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I am leaning on the inclusionist side here. This is very borderline, hence my 'weak' vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came very close to calling this a no consensus, but let's see if a relist helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This author's book on Zegota is extensively cited. For example, Children during the Holocaust by Patricia Heberer, published for the USHMM, series editor Jurgen Matthaus. Tomaszewski edits The Cosmopoltan Review, a respected online journal with contributions from professional historians: http://cosmopolitanreview.com/about-us/Tatzref (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:AUTHOR with one book, which did not receive substantive third-party reviews (or at least I could not find any). The book being cited does not help notability, as we'd need discussion of the book, not citations. Cosmopolitan Review appears to be a nn publication, so being an editor does not help either. Bottom line, there's insufficient coverage of the subject to sustain this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Well established authors of books and articles that are well cited-easily meets WP:AUTHOR. There is ample information about her in reliable sources to make an informative biographical article. Much of her career was well before the internet so her online profile is going to be different that what is commonly seen today. She's doesn't appear to be someone who sought out lifestyle vanity type newspaper pieces. Yet some autobiographic content about her is found in articles that she's written in reliable sources which shows publishes have an interest in her life so also meets GNG. All of these together make it easy for me to say keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: established authors of books and articles that are well cited... is a criteria applied to academics, under WP:PROF. The subject does not meet this guideline, and being cited does not easily meet WP:AUTHOR. For WP:AUTHOR, we'd need substantive third-party reviews, which I missing in this case. If they exist, I would be happy to review them. I was not able to find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Following up on K.e.coffman's above comment, I've found at least one review through JSTOR for Tomaszewski's translation of Krystyna Wituska's letters, (I believe the JSTOR number is 25779130), and I see multiple cites in JSTOR that Google Scholar isn't picking up (including Andrew Jakubowicz and John J. Kulczycki), as well as a record here in EBSCO [1] which suggests there are more sources that may not be immediately accessible, but should be enough to pass the notability threshold.Seraphim System (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets NAuthor. The sources for her are there, with several book reviews among them. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Ideally for an author you'd like to have at least one published book with enough notability to have its own article - I don't see that either. Her interesting prison camp backstory suggests that there should be some media interest, like with Irène Némirovsky, and I just don't see that. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Speedy Deletions

Other deletions

Bot article creation alerts

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2018-07-17 21:15 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.















Manual alerts

Candidates for deletion

Currently none

Newly created articles

Article Date created
Mont Sainte-Cécile 2014-08-19
Johnville Bog & Forest Park 2014-08-11
Mount Pinacle 2014-08-08
Mont Boisjoli 2014-08-08
Montagne des Érables 2014-08-02
Tartigou River 2014-08-01
Sableuse River 2014-08-01

Articles in need of maintenance

  • Le Livre noir du Canada Anglais - NPOV disputed
  • Louis-Alexandre Taschereau - NPOV & clean-up work needed
  • Municipal reorganization in Quebec - ALL the city links needs to be correctly formatted. I had started it but it seems to never have saved *sob* Circeus
  • Montreal Metro delisted GA due to the lack of inline citations, as required by the GA criteria.
  • Quebec was "quickfailed" for GA due to insufficent in-line references. This article is rated top (but should have been rated highest) on the importance scale of Quebec project and attention should be given to improve it as soon as possible considering that it is the main article on Quebec-related subject. Also, please consider reviewing and improving the information already presented in the article before adding or expanding.
  • Mario Laguë - AfD'd; info about his tenure under Paul Martin needs to be added.
  • Maxime Rémillard - In serious need of refimprove

Naming issues

Discussion

If your question, request, or notification does not fall in any of the above categories, or if you aren't sure where to put your issue, please visit the talk page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Quebec_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=622090398"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quebec_Wikipedians'_notice_board
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA