Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive.
Purge page cache watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Trump effect

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

This so-called "Trump effect" on school bullying was part of campaign spin, and never attested by any other study than the SPLC's admittedly anecdotal evidence. Ephemeral notability + attack page = Delete. — JFG talk 01:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Note that this is the second nomination for an article called "Trump effect" but this Trump effect is a different Trump effect. Discussions on the talk page link to multiple articles using "Trump effect" to describe a number of different things but I don't think any of them are particularly notable. This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance. WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT apply.LM2000 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per LM2000. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Yup, just another anti-Trump hit piece not suited for this encyclopedia. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete with optional partial merge to other articles about Trump. I might buy this as an effect of Trump and his gang but not as a single coherent phenomena called the Trump effect, which is what we would need to justify an article of this name. It is no new revelation that elevating big bullies normalises their prejudice and thuggery which makes all the little bullies feel empowered to be more open in their own bullying. We see this throughout history and we see it in many (far too many) contemporary regimes that have thugs for leaders. This is yet another thing that Trump did not invent. So that kills off the name. Is there any argument for just renaming the article? Possibly, but I can't see what that name would be and it would remain a very weak article, which is why we are having this AfD. I'm not deep into the Trump articles, frankly because it is depressing, but I'm sure that we must have something that already covers race relations and social cohesion under Trump? If so, a partial merge there would be a possibility. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beatitudinem. Whether we like Trump or not, we aren't a political action group. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rename/Rework to be about Trump Effect, the SPLC publication on which this lowercase "effect" is based. I agree that having an article about the "effect" is inappropriate, and would require much more than the SPLC publication and media coverage of that publication. However, that publication itself easily satisfies WP:GNG. Framed as such, it doesn't purport an "effect" but puts forward what the SPLC calls an effect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's handshakes

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

WP:!HERE (NOTE: Position subsequently changed to "keep") Sleyece (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry, I meant to check "Watch this page" when I added the nomination to the main page. "minor edit" was an complete accident. I hope it does not stifle debate. Thanks! Sleyece (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Criteria #1, "...fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". There is no actual rationale given for deletion, only a wikilink to WP:!HERE. "WP:Not here" is neither policy nor guideline, it is an informational page regarding editorial conduct. So on the grounds that it is not a binding policy or guideline, does not apply to article content, and the article creator appears t be a longstanding editor, this AFD is flawed and should be summarily closed. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
TheValeyard, the article creator is a longstanding editor with a history of good conduct. I was clearly only referring to the article itself. Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Your rationale to delete an article cites a behavioral guideline for editors that has nothing to do with article content. I would label your argument "flawed" if there was an actual argument to label. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. While it should not be dedicated its own article as it isn't an encyclopedic subject, it should be awarded a section there, as it relates to his philosophy and style. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Are we serious with this? UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and a cornucopia of others. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – While a certain shoe-banging incident by Nikita Khrushchev rose to myth level, Trump's handshakes are mere WP:TRIVIA at this point. In case a merge is preferred by the community, that should be to a new section at Donald Trump in popular culture: topic doesn't qualify for the presidency article. — JFG talk 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the article has problems, but it's about a series of events with significant coverage and there's no obvious merge target. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused. What exactly is the basis for this nomination for deletion? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment On the main page (Trump), the active section "Handshakes" was created by the article creator (Onceinawhile). There was immediate disagreement, both for and against, as to the ability of the new article to contribute a full article worth of knowledge. Therefore, I created a debate to resolve the issue. Sleyece (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, and possibly the leadership style section of the Presidency as well. This is irredeemable trivia, not encyclopedic. Yes, I know it has been commented on by sources, and analyzed as a way of asserting dominance, and it deserves a mention or a section at other pages. But we only make ourselves look ridiculous if we maintain an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The very definition of triviality. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as Article Creator). In terms of ability to fill up a full article, we could easily do that and more, and might have already done so if this AfD hadn't been initiated within just seven hours of the article's creation.
All major international news outlets have been reporting on and analyzing the phenomenon consistently since the beginning of this year.
For starters, we could write a full "History" section, a full "Analysis" section and a full "Reactions" section.
A selection of some of the more substantial writeups are below:
  • CNN, 14 July 2017, A second-by-second analysis of the Trump-Macron handshake
  • National Review, Trump’s Handshakes and the Personalization of Politics
  • NYT, 14 July 2017, All the President’s Handshakes
  • WaPo, 16 Feb 2017, What Trump’s handshake might tell us about him
  • Guardian, 15 Feb 2017, What does Donald Trump’s handshake say about him?
  • WaPo, 10 Feb 2017, Trump and the art of the super-awkward handshake
  • Guardian, 18 March 2017, What is it with Trump and handshakes? This is getting awkward
  • Time, A History of President Trump's Awkward Handshakes
  • VOA, Is Trump Sending Messages with His Handshakes?
  • New Statesman, Feb 2017, A brief history of Donald Trump’s handshakes
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (as Nominator) The preceding statement has given me significantly more confidence that the article could be a full page with a lot of work. Sleyece (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sleyece:The article has become a full page with a lot of work. Please could you have another look, and maybe reevaluate your position? Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Sagecandor: In light of the recent editions to the article, my position on the article has changed to a full "keep". Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Sleyece:If you have changed your position on the article to a full "Keep", does that mean you've withdrawn your nomination ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
          • @Sagecandor: I can't do that in good conscience. This is still a heated debate, and I must wait for a concensus. The best I can do for now is to throw my support in your favor. Good luck. Sleyece (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
            • @Sleyece:Perhaps you could maybe add a note to your nomination statement, at the top, noting you've since changed to "Keep" sentiment ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial subject. Could be merged to Donald Trump in popular culture if merge is preferred. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- involves world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets WP:SIGCOV per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you agree that "trivia articles should be avoided"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If and when Trump orb gets deleted, then maybe I'd change my stance. This is perhaps 0.55 in "Trump orbs" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You were right then: "No lasting significance or societal impact." The orb is trivia, whether he's touching it, kissing it, or shaking it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's trivia and unencyclopedic. Donald Trump in popular culture can cover all that's needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expanded the article with sources listed above by Onceinawhile. @Sleyece:Perhaps you might want to revisit this version of the article after my research, and reevaluate your position. Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable due to mention in multiple RS, and not "trivia" for the same reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: From what I gather from the nomination (which could have been more explicit about the concern, even at the expense of actual words) this article violates one or more WP:NOT criteria (WP:!HERE is an information supplement to WP:NOT). I have to agree: this article is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless a person is primarily (or even particularly) known for his handshakes other than momentarily, his handshakes don't merit a standalone article. This is a WP:POVFORK of Donlad Trump. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop, you're free to use the reason for nomination as a reasoning for supporting deletion. Please be aware, however, that this user (as Nominator) did slightly amend the original nomination after a strong statement from the Article Creator. Sleyece (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator provided the following justification for deletion: "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". This is not a valid justification. The subject received huge coverage in press. This is one of things D.Trump is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seriously, odd, probably embarrassing, mannerisms of a person deserve an article in an encyclopedia? Have we lost sight of our mission? WP:TRIVIA, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FODDERFORCOMEDIANS, WP:STUPIDHUMANTRICKS, WP:GETAROOM. Sorry, I have yet to create the last three refs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
We keep pages about presidential dogs. This is something a lot more serious because it tells a lot about the person. Hence the significant RS coverage. This is reference work. If something was covered and became as famous as this subject, it deserves inclusion. It passes our notability guidelines by a wide margin. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Does it pass WP:10YT? Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No one knows. Maybe it will. Well, using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is something rather innovative. This is even better than denigrate world leaders by coming late to meetings (that is what Putin does). Yes, maybe that belongs to another page - I have no strong opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no pass/fail for something labeled "...It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay". Argue the merits of the article on actual policy or guidelines, not Wiki-errata. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, unencyclopedic and trivial. I'm also somewhat surprised to see keep votes here from people who have been trying to get Trump campaign–Russian meeting deleted/merged. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete- Are we just giving up on being an encyclopedia? What is the benefit of this trivial article to readers? WP:NOTNEWS is also appropriate in this case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable as covered widely in national and international press. If the discussion had been a vote on whether national and international press were right in spending any time or space on the matter, I would have voted "definitely not," but that is not how this works. Mlewan (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as Nominator) This article has been greatly improved since nomination. It has had numerous content additions since initiating debate, and the references have increased by a factor of ten. Most importantly, the article now clearly defines how the subject of the article can and does have relevant foreign policy implications. Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Absurdly trivial. Everything involving Trump receives intense coverage but we cannot have articles on all things Trump. Based on the ridiculous coverage it generated, we could create an article on the number of scoops of ice cream he receives, but the encyclopedia wouldn't benefit from that and it doesn't benefit from this either. Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture as we did with Donald Trump's hair.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep While absurdly trivial (though perhaps not completely trivial, as this is notable as a power play - just as Hafez al-Assad's bladder diplomacy was in the 80s and 90s ([1] [2]) - it is a subject that is given quite some coverage in WP:RS and has risen to the point where opposing world leaders prepare scripted responses for said handshake and coverage. Absurdly trivial things, if they received WP:SIGCOV are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, they're not. From the same section you link to: topics meeting GNG are "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." In other words, a ton of topics may meet GNG but are still excluded because they fail WP:NOT. I would think that "absurdly trivial" things are not what general encyclopedias are for. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There isn't anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - When I first saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was that it should be deleted. But I was quickly persuaded to reverse my position by the significant number of quality reliable sources where the handshake is the primary topic. It easily passes WP:GNG, it is inoffensive, and so it should remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial. The plethora of news analysis only shows how little the news has to report. Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Informational Development

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

Does not read like a neutral presentation of the views of reliable sources, but partly like an opinion essay and partly like a blurb for a governmental program. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Yes it is clearly an essay like structure with sources thrown in to support specific point. Overall topic doesn't seem to be notable, as presented here, even if various aspects of it might be. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


This is just a work in progress, and rather requires more research. A point about controversy in Africa, where resources could be better spent on basic living will be added soon. It was a mistake that it was published so soon, and normally it should have gone to sandbox. I'll also search for some community initiatives and roles of NGO. Perhaps listing by State fell short of the point. Thanks for your efforts. --PasswordDoesNotGoHere (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - The author appears to be proposing draftification, which is fine with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-relations psychotherapy

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

Article about a concept that was coined by an individual practitioner, Stephen Gilligan, and is only sourced from his books. The article about Gilligan has just been deleted in an AfD, and as the concept does not appear to be notable independently of him, it would follow that this article should also be deleted. I have looked, mainly in Google Scholar, for third-party sources but not found anything that shows that the concept is used by people other than Gilligan. There are some passing references to SRP by other people, but always in connection with Gilligan, and there are no in-depth discussions of the model that I can find, outside Gilligan's own books. bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Religiousness of young and emerging adults

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

Article seems to be college essay uploaded in 2012, delete as per WP:FORUM Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Barryob: The issues are explicitly not reasons for deletion. WP:DEL-REASON. Not saying it's not worth nominating, but you may want to add to your deletion rationale. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but I accept that this article needs a lot of work to be done on it. I think that it could do with a new title such as "Religion in young adulthood" - the talk page does query the use of the phrase "emerging adults". Vorbee (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and Vorbee. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for college essays, which is what this appears to be. With extensive rework, the topic may be suitable for its own article, but this really doesn't look like the base for that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Topic and article is notable, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne Social Equity Institute

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

Institute within a university. Such institutes are almost never considered notable here, unless they are world famous. There is no indication that this one is. Every reference is from their own web page, and that's where this material belongs. Possibly this is best considered a G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:ORG. full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I agree the current article is completely based on primary sources, contrary to policy. However, I think there is just sufficient reliable secondary sources as per this for WP:NEXIST to apply. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to either Bernadette McSherry or University of Melbourne. There is no reason why this can't be included somewhere else. Regards SoWhy 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: no need to redirect or merge IMO, as DGG says, all of its content is just sourced to its own website, conveying no independent notability. DrStrauss talk 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Question for DrStrauss, DGG, K.e.coffman, LibStar. So there is not sufficient secondary sources here to satisfy WP:NEXIST ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I did not mention the GNG requirement for sourcing in my nomination for deletion. There are many other reasons for deletion, and the ones I suggested are based on the principle, also in WP:GNG, that passing the GNG does not guarantee an article. Among the reasons why there might not be an article is that the material is best covered in a more comprehensive article. We generally do follow that rule, and the practice at WP for the last 10+ years I have been here, is that we do not usually make articles for individual research institutes within universities unless they are famous. One of the reasons for this is that we generally do not have sources which provide material which is not also on their own web sites, and anyone interested in the institute knows perfectly well how to find it.
But the most important reason, as I said, is that the article was entirely promotional. It had no sources except from the school itself, all subpages of its own web site; the fact that others exist but that they did not use them indicates their purpose: it was to reprint a summary of their website on Wikipedia. That is advertising. Articles that are entirely advertising should be deleted, unless they are important enough for someone to rescue. The only way we can tell in a discussion if someone will rescue them is if they are improved during the discussion. In the 12 days this article has been at AfD nobody has improved it. The conclusion of these syllogisms is thus that the article should not remain in Wikipedia. Nor should it remain in Draft. It might get improved there, but it is pure advertising, and we do not do that in draft space either (and we unfortunately know that relatively few articles do get improved there). So I challenge anyone who thinks there are sources for a NPOV article: write one. (I've followed my own rule, and improved many articles in this manner when they are in my field and sufficiently important. When I first came here I thought I could do it very often, but if I do it properly rather than minimally I only have time for one or two a week.) DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. I can see your point, but what it really means is that something is effectively only notable at AfD if it meets GNG and someone has the time and interest at the time of AfD to fix it and is aware of it at the time. This might leave a lot of notable topics in severe danger just because an interested editor is not around and/or engaged at the time. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I was at that point in my comment talking only about articles characterized by thoroughgoing promotionalism. There is no point leaving in the encyclopedia articles that are essentially advocacy or advertising in the hope they will be rewritten. Sometimes there are other techniques, such as stubbification, but then someone needs to watch that the material not be restored. I've never used this argument for notability, where I agree with you that the probability of sources can often be sufficient reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Railway and tramway terminology in Europe

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

Contested PROD with quite a lengthy rationale which can be found on its Talk page. My concerns when the tag was added remain, though. This is an indiscriminate and uncited list with some unusual choices of language (particularly, although the article creator addresses this, the inclusion of US English in an article about Europe). The rationale as provided makes the comment that there may not be a source along these lines, which further raises my concerns regarding this being potentially original research and/or a synthesis of data beyond what should be included. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The nominator called the article an "indiscriminate list of terms", which I disagree with. The article in its current form contains tables of terms in select languages relevant to different distinct types/variations of railway vehicles or railway service (in a broad sense, see cable car). Probably this is one of the rare articles on Wikipedia that is not about a topic in itself, but serves a meta-role, I specifically intended it to be a multilingual complement to articles such as Passenger rail terminology, with a wider scope, including freight service. Talking about notability in both cases is futile, because such articles aren't covering a singular encyclopedic topic per se, railway/tramway terminology, especially on how they relate to each other in different languages is not the usual kind of coherent topic that most articles on Wikipedia deal with. I have checked the glossary articles which I have linked in Railway and tramway terminology in Europe, and while most of the terms are sourced to some kind of reliable source, unfortunately not all are, of these, pretty much all are wikilinks to their respective articles.
It's one thing to find a source to support the description of a term in a language, it's another thing to support that indeed, term A is term B in another language, but not term C in English, as commonly believed. As explained on the talk page, my intention was to ease the railway/tramway terminology confusion which is most evident by the frequent mix up between motor coach (rail), railmotor, railcar and multiple unit. This is because the US railway terminology and the rules of otherwise similar phrases diverged significantly from the European (British and/or UIC) terminology. An outlook on how these terms correspond to each other would help both the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and the understanding of railways/tramways in the general populace. The languages represented were based on my rough ideas on which countries had contributed to the specific concepts the most in the era of railway electrification and the expansion of city tramway systems in the late 19th, early 20th century. Therefore the languages represented are pretty much ad hoc, but these choices seemed reasonable while keeping table width in mind.
I fully understand that this kind of article might not be sourced in a way that other articles are, but I welcome any suggestions on how to do so. Alternatively, instead of deleting the article, I would suggest making it either an appendix in Wiktionary or a project page to aid editors involved in railway articles. Of course, the best would be if the article could be in article space much like Passenger rail terminology. I hope that my concern is clear and a solution for the concern will be offered. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Indiscriminate" may have been a less than helpful term on my part, and if so I apologise. The point that I was making through using that word was that the selection of languages (not so much the terminology itself) was more arbitrary than appeared clear. While you've addressed this in part on the article's Talk page with the explanation that these are the languages of countries where the technology was in significant use, it still reads as being more arbitrary than that. English, German, French and Italian are all major languages even now, but the inclusion of Polish and Hungarian is less immediately clear, as the former was a language spoken within 3 larger empires and - depending on your exact timeframe - various smaller states at the time, and the latter was the language of what was essentially a sub-national unit of one of those larger empires. There's also the inclusion of US English, which again you address in part in your rationale, but which really doesn't have much to do with European terminology for anything at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Pasha Kerimov

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

Deprodded without rationale by article's creator. All the current citations are simple listings or primary sources. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage of this individual through searches. Can't even find a single citation count for him. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC).

Tceqli

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

Tceqli (formerly Ceqli) is an artificial language which lacks notability. There are no citations on the page except to websites maintained by the language's creator. Google searches for "Tceqli" and "Ceqli" does not turn up any coverage except for a handful of personal websites and Wikipedia mirrors. A previous AfD nomination also linked to its appearance in a list of conlangs in a magazine article: link (Russian). There were claims that the language has an ISO 639-3 code, but that does not appear to be the case. Besides the ISO claim previous arguments against deletion were mostly based on WP:WAX and WP:IKNOWIT. Delete per WP:NN.

Edit: the language's creator has changed its name since the previous AfD discussions. They can be found here: 2004, 2005, 2007. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Androphobia

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

Recently recreated article deleted twice before at AfD. CSD declined due to differing content. It is nonetheless still not a notable concept. On one hand it is one of the -phobias that gets a brief mentioned in various lists of [various prefixes] + phobia. On the other hand it's used to mean misandry. Would also be appropriate to simply redirect to list of phobias, where it is already listed (and doesn't need additional detail). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the problems with phobias is that it's possible to snowclone an absolutely limitless number of words for new phobias, simply by attaching a Latin or Greek prefix to -phobia, to define an irrational fear of absolutely anything that exists. So to make this a notable concept that would warrant an encyclopedia article, what would be needed is not mere dictionary definitions, which is all that's present for referencing here — we would need actual substance to suggest that this term actually has real-world context, such as sources which discuss it in depth as a concept and analyze actual examples of the purported phobia in action. Boilerplate dictionary definitions of what it technically means as a term aren't enough to merit an encyclopedia article by themselves, if we can't show any substance beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Knappologi

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

This article is a mere definition of a term only included in a short story. However, per WP:NOT, such articles should not be kept. Also, there is no supported claim of notability for this very term. So I believe that the article should be deleted. Kostas20142 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per this nomination (and my PROD), this is only a would-be dictionary definition, and there is no evidence that the term is used outside the story. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTDICT. The word is sometimes used in Swedish [3], and is even included in the major encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin [4]. That's not an argument for keeping the article, not least because this is the English Wikipedia, and as far as I know the word is never used in English. Sjö (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Knappologi is suitable for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Julle (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Gratis

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

Article about a definition. Fails WP:NOTDICT. - MrX 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom NikolaiHo☎️ 01:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This in not really an encyclopedic topic covered in multiple reliable sources. It is word with definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as noted by the nom). Steve Quinn (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2017 (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.

Mahanji

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

The subject doesn't have any mentions in reliable sources, thus making it fail WP:GNG. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I found one two reliable sources with a quick search of Google. WP:BEFORE requests that you must check for sources before nominating.--TM 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Khuzh

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

WP:NOTANARMENIANDICTIONARY KDS4444 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of English words of Ukrainian origin

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

We already do this at en.wikt, specifically here. I would nominate everything currently in Category:Lists_of_English_words_of_foreign_origin if I had the patience to wade through all the instructions and procedures (sorry if I missed a step). See WP:NOT#DIC. Gamren (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see the point of this. And also, we have another wiki for this. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was able to find this brief mention:
    1. Antor, Heinz; Bölling, Gordon; Kern-Stähler, Annette; Stierstorfer, Klaus, eds. (2005). Refractions of Canada in European Literature and Culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 89. ISBN 3110919249. Retrieved 2017-07-12. 

      The book notes:

      Just a Kommedia by Nika Rylski is about preservation and assimilation, tradition and the new environment; and the relationship between the two poles is expressed by cultural symbols and language. The Maple Leaf and the Ukrainian flag stand side by side. The national anthem of the Ukraine mingles with that of Canada. Items on the menu are Kasha and Big Mac, Borscht and Hot Dog, and in parts of the text Ukranian expressions intrude on the English dialogue thereby dividing and transcending the two worlds.

      This mentions Kasha and Borscht.
    But it by itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.

    Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep: Loanwords and borrowings is a valid academic topic. There are many books on the subject of loanwords in particular languages and from particular languages (book search; titles include Spanish Loanwords in the English Language, Loanwords in Japanese, Native American Loanwords in Current English, Arabic and Persian Loanwords in Tagalog, etc.). The list of loanwords in Wiktionary is not a substitute for this one: a list of article titles is not a substitute for a glossary, which has terms with accompanying glosses or annotations. Despite the many books on similar subjects, there is very little specifically about Ukrainian loanwords in English. One example is a book chapter by the chief editor of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which includes some discussion and also a glossary: Katherine Barber (2008), Only in Canada: A Treasury of Canadian Language, Toronto: Oxford University Press, p. 79 (preview on Amazon). This is a small subject, and suffers from systemic bias in Wikipedia as well as globally. All the more reason not to delete this list or related articles. Michael Z. 2017-07-14 01:20 z
  • Keep: First and foremost, this is a valid academic subject. Second, we have articles called List of English words of X origin for literally around a hundred languages. Ok, the fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep as such. Still, if we have a similar article for almost any other European language (and we do), then why pick out the Ukrainian one in particular for deletion? Either start a discussion to delete all such articles (and I'd oppose it if the discussion came up, as it is a very valid academic subject) or speedy keep this one. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's misleading to say that this exact same thing is on Wiktionary, as the Wikipedia page offers more information (including subcategorisation and word meanings). The topic of loan words and words from foreign languages is clearly notable, and you could argue that subdividing that by language is a sensible way of representing a notable topic in a manageable way (creating subpages for large topics is allowed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CLN. While there is a category for this, the list itself gives more information and context for each entry. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments already offered by other editors affirming the validity as an academic subject. Loanword studies are entry level linguistics, ergo certainly not OSE or NOT#DIC. All of the related articles should be challenged for deletion base solid policy and guideline rationales, or this nomination and support for deletion read as arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. I'm not doubting the good faith of the nomination or those who agree with deletion: I'm wondering at why this was started on a random article in the group rather than presenting a solid argument for the elimination of all of the related article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Prodded articles


History

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. Nomination withdrawn. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but my main concerns were as a result of confusion by references not included on the page.(non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

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

I believe this to be a WP:HOAX. The Spratly Islands page says there were no permanent settlements on the islands until 1956, and there's a variety of wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956, mostly referenced to an AngelFire site. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Leave it alone - your arguments are poor, and you provide no supporting evidence for your arguments or against the statements in the article. Meanwhile the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The fact that you believe the page to be a hoax is insufficient justification to delete it, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
    • The page never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
    • What are the "wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956"?
    • Which is the AngelFire site that is referenced?
  • Comment http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html was the site. The more incredible historical claims generally are sourced to an affidavit from 1971. While I (and the sources) feel the accuracy of that is questionable, it's not a WP:HOAX. That said, I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply Thanks for the link. However, you continue to make unsubstantiated claims and statements, and not explain the unsubstantiated claims and statements that you have previously made. Please explain yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • You say you feel that the accuracy is questionable. The accuracy of what? (I can't see any obvious inaccuracies in the article.)
    • You say "I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing." I emphasise that you have yet to point out any flaws in the article.
    • I remind you that what you think, feel and/or believe is insufficient justification to delete the article, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
    • I remind you that the article never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
    • I also remind you that the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. You don't seem to be paying due regard this.
    • Also, have you read the previous deletion debates?
    • So far all I can see from you is WP:I just don't like it, and I can't work out just what it is you are objecting to, much less why you think the article should be deleted.
    • By-the-way: What does the AngelFire reference have to do with this discussion? (It is not mentioned in the article.)
    • What historical claims are you referring to?
    • Which 1971 affidavit?
      • Post-script: I've just had a look at http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html Thanks for the entertainment. I'm astounded to discover that someone (anyone?) would go to so much effort to create a set of web pages that I would classify as nonsense bearing no relationship to either reality or the contents of the wikipedia article. I'm glad that there are other more reliable sources that we can draw upon. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Micronations are an interesting (if slightly bizarre) subject, typically unrecognised by anyone else. I have not looked at the sources, but am assuming verifiability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2017 (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.

Donald Trump's handshakes

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

WP:!HERE (NOTE: Position subsequently changed to "keep") Sleyece (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry, I meant to check "Watch this page" when I added the nomination to the main page. "minor edit" was an complete accident. I hope it does not stifle debate. Thanks! Sleyece (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Criteria #1, "...fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". There is no actual rationale given for deletion, only a wikilink to WP:!HERE. "WP:Not here" is neither policy nor guideline, it is an informational page regarding editorial conduct. So on the grounds that it is not a binding policy or guideline, does not apply to article content, and the article creator appears t be a longstanding editor, this AFD is flawed and should be summarily closed. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
TheValeyard, the article creator is a longstanding editor with a history of good conduct. I was clearly only referring to the article itself. Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Your rationale to delete an article cites a behavioral guideline for editors that has nothing to do with article content. I would label your argument "flawed" if there was an actual argument to label. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. While it should not be dedicated its own article as it isn't an encyclopedic subject, it should be awarded a section there, as it relates to his philosophy and style. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Are we serious with this? UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and a cornucopia of others. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – While a certain shoe-banging incident by Nikita Khrushchev rose to myth level, Trump's handshakes are mere WP:TRIVIA at this point. In case a merge is preferred by the community, that should be to a new section at Donald Trump in popular culture: topic doesn't qualify for the presidency article. — JFG talk 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the article has problems, but it's about a series of events with significant coverage and there's no obvious merge target. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused. What exactly is the basis for this nomination for deletion? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment On the main page (Trump), the active section "Handshakes" was created by the article creator (Onceinawhile). There was immediate disagreement, both for and against, as to the ability of the new article to contribute a full article worth of knowledge. Therefore, I created a debate to resolve the issue. Sleyece (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, and possibly the leadership style section of the Presidency as well. This is irredeemable trivia, not encyclopedic. Yes, I know it has been commented on by sources, and analyzed as a way of asserting dominance, and it deserves a mention or a section at other pages. But we only make ourselves look ridiculous if we maintain an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The very definition of triviality. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as Article Creator). In terms of ability to fill up a full article, we could easily do that and more, and might have already done so if this AfD hadn't been initiated within just seven hours of the article's creation.
All major international news outlets have been reporting on and analyzing the phenomenon consistently since the beginning of this year.
For starters, we could write a full "History" section, a full "Analysis" section and a full "Reactions" section.
A selection of some of the more substantial writeups are below:
  • CNN, 14 July 2017, A second-by-second analysis of the Trump-Macron handshake
  • National Review, Trump’s Handshakes and the Personalization of Politics
  • NYT, 14 July 2017, All the President’s Handshakes
  • WaPo, 16 Feb 2017, What Trump’s handshake might tell us about him
  • Guardian, 15 Feb 2017, What does Donald Trump’s handshake say about him?
  • WaPo, 10 Feb 2017, Trump and the art of the super-awkward handshake
  • Guardian, 18 March 2017, What is it with Trump and handshakes? This is getting awkward
  • Time, A History of President Trump's Awkward Handshakes
  • VOA, Is Trump Sending Messages with His Handshakes?
  • New Statesman, Feb 2017, A brief history of Donald Trump’s handshakes
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (as Nominator) The preceding statement has given me significantly more confidence that the article could be a full page with a lot of work. Sleyece (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sleyece:The article has become a full page with a lot of work. Please could you have another look, and maybe reevaluate your position? Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Sagecandor: In light of the recent editions to the article, my position on the article has changed to a full "keep". Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Sleyece:If you have changed your position on the article to a full "Keep", does that mean you've withdrawn your nomination ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
          • @Sagecandor: I can't do that in good conscience. This is still a heated debate, and I must wait for a concensus. The best I can do for now is to throw my support in your favor. Good luck. Sleyece (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
            • @Sleyece:Perhaps you could maybe add a note to your nomination statement, at the top, noting you've since changed to "Keep" sentiment ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial subject. Could be merged to Donald Trump in popular culture if merge is preferred. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- involves world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets WP:SIGCOV per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you agree that "trivia articles should be avoided"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If and when Trump orb gets deleted, then maybe I'd change my stance. This is perhaps 0.55 in "Trump orbs" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You were right then: "No lasting significance or societal impact." The orb is trivia, whether he's touching it, kissing it, or shaking it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's trivia and unencyclopedic. Donald Trump in popular culture can cover all that's needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expanded the article with sources listed above by Onceinawhile. @Sleyece:Perhaps you might want to revisit this version of the article after my research, and reevaluate your position. Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable due to mention in multiple RS, and not "trivia" for the same reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: From what I gather from the nomination (which could have been more explicit about the concern, even at the expense of actual words) this article violates one or more WP:NOT criteria (WP:!HERE is an information supplement to WP:NOT). I have to agree: this article is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless a person is primarily (or even particularly) known for his handshakes other than momentarily, his handshakes don't merit a standalone article. This is a WP:POVFORK of Donlad Trump. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop, you're free to use the reason for nomination as a reasoning for supporting deletion. Please be aware, however, that this user (as Nominator) did slightly amend the original nomination after a strong statement from the Article Creator. Sleyece (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator provided the following justification for deletion: "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". This is not a valid justification. The subject received huge coverage in press. This is one of things D.Trump is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seriously, odd, probably embarrassing, mannerisms of a person deserve an article in an encyclopedia? Have we lost sight of our mission? WP:TRIVIA, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FODDERFORCOMEDIANS, WP:STUPIDHUMANTRICKS, WP:GETAROOM. Sorry, I have yet to create the last three refs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
We keep pages about presidential dogs. This is something a lot more serious because it tells a lot about the person. Hence the significant RS coverage. This is reference work. If something was covered and became as famous as this subject, it deserves inclusion. It passes our notability guidelines by a wide margin. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Does it pass WP:10YT? Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No one knows. Maybe it will. Well, using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is something rather innovative. This is even better than denigrate world leaders by coming late to meetings (that is what Putin does). Yes, maybe that belongs to another page - I have no strong opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no pass/fail for something labeled "...It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay". Argue the merits of the article on actual policy or guidelines, not Wiki-errata. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, unencyclopedic and trivial. I'm also somewhat surprised to see keep votes here from people who have been trying to get Trump campaign–Russian meeting deleted/merged. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete- Are we just giving up on being an encyclopedia? What is the benefit of this trivial article to readers? WP:NOTNEWS is also appropriate in this case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable as covered widely in national and international press. If the discussion had been a vote on whether national and international press were right in spending any time or space on the matter, I would have voted "definitely not," but that is not how this works. Mlewan (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as Nominator) This article has been greatly improved since nomination. It has had numerous content additions since initiating debate, and the references have increased by a factor of ten. Most importantly, the article now clearly defines how the subject of the article can and does have relevant foreign policy implications. Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Absurdly trivial. Everything involving Trump receives intense coverage but we cannot have articles on all things Trump. Based on the ridiculous coverage it generated, we could create an article on the number of scoops of ice cream he receives, but the encyclopedia wouldn't benefit from that and it doesn't benefit from this either. Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture as we did with Donald Trump's hair.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep While absurdly trivial (though perhaps not completely trivial, as this is notable as a power play - just as Hafez al-Assad's bladder diplomacy was in the 80s and 90s ([5] [6]) - it is a subject that is given quite some coverage in WP:RS and has risen to the point where opposing world leaders prepare scripted responses for said handshake and coverage. Absurdly trivial things, if they received WP:SIGCOV are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, they're not. From the same section you link to: topics meeting GNG are "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." In other words, a ton of topics may meet GNG but are still excluded because they fail WP:NOT. I would think that "absurdly trivial" things are not what general encyclopedias are for. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There isn't anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - When I first saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was that it should be deleted. But I was quickly persuaded to reverse my position by the significant number of quality reliable sources where the handshake is the primary topic. It easily passes WP:GNG, it is inoffensive, and so it should remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial. The plethora of news analysis only shows how little the news has to report. Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Anatole de Bengy

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

PROD'd by me, de-PROD'd with no reason given aside from "removing PROD". The subject's main claim to importance is that he was a Jesuit martyr massacred along with 70 others in 1871. The group is clearly notable as a whole, however, I can't find any sources that discuss de Bengy specifically and in-depth as an individual, aside from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The source that's been added to the article is a blog, so it doesn't qualify as WP:RS. It doesn't cite its sources so there is nothing to follow up on from there. ♠PMC(talk) 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Catholic Encyclopedia is enough to demonstrate independent notability, even if we were to want another source for neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Martyrs of the Paris Commune, which is currently a redirect to Paris Commune, but should be a substantive one. That target is a general article, where the martyrdoms are not (or hardly) mentioned. Unless considered for canonisation, each martyr is probably individually NN, but collectively the subject is probably one that deserves an article. This one currently has two sources of which Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
As nom I'm 100% on board with a merge to an expanded Martyrs of the Paris Commune article. FWIW I'm not disputing that CE is reliable, but that as a single source it doesn't satisfy GNG (at least in my opinion). ♠PMC(talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once again, for an article to pass AfD sources only have to exist, they don't have to be in the article. As it turns out, there are lots of nineteenth-century French sources, as a GBooks search shows. Which is why he made it into the CE in the first place - his memoirs were published the year he died, and seem to have been well received. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Euratlas History Maps

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

Fails WP:WEB and fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Euratlas is cited as a source in quite a few google-scholar and google-books hits. I believe their historical map data is RS (or regarded by some as such).Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Hi! It's not true that this page fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. History mapping does not receive attention like a nationwide sports competition! As Notability for Webs says (quote) "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". In the history field, Euratlas represents the digital enterprise that sums up many years of research and paper/print publications (mainly Atlases). It is just so important. Considering only the name of the company, which is a compound noun, not included in the dictionary, google says over 100.000 results. That, in the history field is notable, indeed.

There are so many sources online citing Euratlas. As Notability for Webs says(quote) "the individual web content has received [...] attention from independent sources" and also "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article". Maybe more sources should be added, specially in German and French. But the sources already exist, indeed, so it is a notable subject. Many blogs and reviews exist, including university (public!) endorsement. All independently and in many, many languages.

Are the Universities of Virginia, Duke and Stamford not reliable sources? Is the AU Library Knowledgebase not a reliable source? Please, explain yourself on that. Check (quite huge) traffic analytics https://www.similarweb.com/website/euratlas.net Comte arnau(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Subject isn't notable, per nom. Comte arnau wants us to believe we need an article about this because the subject " is just so important" and Icewhiz claims WP:GHITS. Both are discredited arguments. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    I am not claiming GHITS. I am saying, following a google scholar and books search - that these maps are cited by many. Not the website, the map data.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they all seem to be created to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion by B&B owners, possibly as a result of the YouTube instruction video I referenced for Pink House AfD recommendation]:

Moses J. Taylor House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bishop-Andrews Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fairbanks House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. P. Dickman House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grant Van Valkenburg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old Town Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mary Phifer McKenzie House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Lee McFarlin House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoyt House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I just used Categories to find similar items, and there are literally thousands of entries... and this is just Florida [7] Most may not be B&B's but every one I looked at has basically no references so there seem to be a global WP:Notability issue here. This is beyond the manual AfD process capability! RobP (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This category[8] provides a smaller set which are all B&Bs which I used to find some of the articles listed above. RobP (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Business advertisement RobP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled across a YouTube video training B & B owners how to try to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion - and it is brazenly named: Getting Your Business on Wikipedia! I did a quick search on B & B and came across this article which seems to fit the bill of an article on a business with no particular WP:Notability that may be connected. I wonder how many others there are? [9] RobP (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This says it's also known as “the Walter Brown House” but I can't find anything for it under that name, either. If it truly is historic there would be some such designation -- but no sign of that, either. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Subjects isn't aren't notable. Although Moses J. Taylor House, Bishop-Andrews Hotel, and Fairbanks Houseare all registered historic buildings, WP:GEOFEAT requires "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" which seem to be lacking. Admittedly, the paid editors are busy at work and they've been staying a step ahead of us. If the consensus is delete, I'd ask the closing admin to put Fairbanks House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) into my userspace so I can rehab it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOR; I don't find anything about the house on newspapers.com, google books, etc, although in theory such an article could be useful, per XKCD:Constructive. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm striking my !vote, which was made before the AfD included multiple articles. I still don't find anything about Pink House, but certainly a number of these are perfectly suitable buildings for an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 08:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Old Town Manor. It seems to have enough sourced detail to pass the WP:GNG. Some of the sources are not properly formatted and do not include sufficient bibliographic detail to easily verify, but I think hter is enogh here to keep and improve. Failing that, draftify while refs are checked and filled in. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: All the sites on the NRHP are inherently notable. I created the NRHP articles over 10 years ago, and be assured I am not affiliated with any B&B (individual or organization). --Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 06:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial keep: NRHP-listed sites generally meet the GNG - the NRHP documentation alone usually contains a wealth of historical information. Any advertising, of course, should be stripped out permanently. The non-NRHP-listed articles don't appear to meet the GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial keep Any of the properties on the NRHP are notable; the standards for listing a property on the NRHP are higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability, and part of the nomination process involves compiling a list of references that can be used to support our articles as well. Besides, most of those articles aren't even promotional, they're just short; of course, being promotional isn't inherently a reason to delete something, since AfD isn't cleanup. No opinion on the others, though the lack of WP:BEFORE for the properties on the NRHP has me leaning toward a procedural keep for those as well. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 13:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep All I believe 7 of the 10 are NRHP listed and therefore notable. The remainder should be individually renominated after a thorough WP:BEFORE if they still appear not to meet GNG. MB 06:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Possible keep (some) for those on NRHP; delete the rest. I am slightly dubious as to whether WP needs articles on all NRHP buildings. In UK, we do not allow articles on all listed buildings, though being listed may swing us to keeping in doubtful cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RAF Krendi

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

Refs seem to all come from RAF web pages; discussion in multiple independent secondary sources is lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are you serious? Of course RAF bases are notable. And none of the references are from "RAF web pages". Not one. Bizarre nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think what the nominator is pointing is that most of the current refs are from https://www.rafht.co.uk/, www.rafweb.org, and the like, which are all dedicated RAF sites or blogs in terms of the area of interest. Also, in terms of web searching, RAF Qrendi seems to be a valid alternate spelling. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject fails WP:MILNG. I see no criterion for bases. Further, once you strip out the fan sites there's not much left for general notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep passes on GNG,WP:MILUNIT(7), and probably WP:GEOLAND (Most british bases had housing and were sparate legal entities). The base hosted a few squadrons, up to aroung a wing, of spitfires thus exceeding the squadron level cutoff. Plenty of book references found in quick before in google books, deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: How? MILUNIT specifies that "Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands" could be notable and that might apply to the three fighter squadrons that were stationed on Krendi, but not the runway and buildings. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The base commander is, in many air forces, the commander with authority over the stationed squadrons. Thus, this is greater than a squadron. Futhermore I will note that most military bases are deemed notable. This is rarely a question. It might be a question for a small barracks or a group of tents but not an airfield which is not a small installation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments by Necrothesp and Icewhiz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Any RAF base will be featured in multiple independent sources. Matt's talk 23:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - RAF Qrendi has a coat of arms / official Station badge, which ALONE confers notability!!!!!!!! [10]--Petebutt (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep A WWII RAF base is certainly notable. The complaint about a single source should be addressed by tagging it for better sources, not through AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681).

John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681). (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681)." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG, though the sepuchral monument may actually be notable. Kleuske (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't currently meet WP standards (it doesn't explain very well who Bayne is, needs renamed, and doesn't fit with usual article format), and I don't think Bayne quite meets notability requirements despite playing a small role in the history of Scotland and its architecture, although maybe there are more sources offline. It would be a shame to lose the information. Information on the funerary monument could be added to Greyfriars Kirkyard (which already has a picture of it): there are some brief sources online e.g.[11] and a bibliography on the churchyard by Historic Environment Scotland[12]. His former residence Pitcairlie House is Category A listed[13] which means it's probably notable, so an article could be created on it. Information on his involvement in the construction of other buildings or his relationships with the likes of William Bruce (architect) could be added to those articles if references meeting WP:RS exist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject isn't notable. The article abuses a bunch of primary and unpublished sources which violates WP:V. We already have an article on Greyfriars Kirkyard where information about the mausoleum would exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- Sure in its present form it is a poorly written article. However only one of the sources is unpublished (though this is cited three times). The rest look like reputable works (though older ones). The article is certainly capable of rescue. The question is whether he was notable, and that is where I have doubts. He clearly made enough money to buy an estate; and we are told his house is category A listed; he also founded university bursaries, which apparently ceased to be awarded in 1901. That might just about be enough for notability. If kept, the article could become John Bayne of Pitcairlie or John Bayne (1620-1681), with a capnote placed on John Bayne. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Atheistic nationalism

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

Subject is not covered significantly as a unified subject in reliable sources outside of mirrors. Results are mirrors and text where someone mentions in passing that a brand of nationalism is in a atheistic way. I prefer deletion, but I'm open to a merge if there is a suitable target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete At first glance, it seems it does not have any good sources to deserve an article. I will try to look for more sources, but as it is it barely has any encyclopedic value. Ebacci EN (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only because as Nom states, the term is not in significant use as a term of art, but because in a quick search, where these two word ane used in conjunction in phrases like "All forms of pagan or atheistic nationalism are demonic", "should penetrate beyond the shell of secular atheistic nationalism into the divine spark at the core of...", or "It is fashionable to ascribe the horrors of Nazism to an atheistic nationalism", there are simple 2 words that convey a meaning, but not a defined ideology. The exception to this is with regard to Soviet Russia. There I did see what seems like use of this phrase as a sort of term of art:"they sought to supplant religious faith with a new religion—atheistic nationalism—making this, and not the Russian Orthodox Church,the focal point for...", but I did not find enough such uses to persuade me that it is a commonly used or notable term of art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. P (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The two cases quoted were part of a totalitarian effort to control everything, including religion. Nationalism was merely a means of focusing this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Killing of a President

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

Conspiracy book fails WP:NBOOK/WP:BOOKCRIT. While it gets some mention in the "walled-garden" of conspiracy authors and websites, I don't see any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The first citation in the article does not mention the book. Location (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - The book does not meet general notability requirements and lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, although this looks like it will be delete, i suggest redirect to author, as looking at WorldCat here, shows it is held by around 490 libraries so title may be a legitimate wikisearch term? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I am OK with a redirect to Robert J. Groden. -Location (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete (or redirect). Most of this kind of conspiracy theory are akin to WP:OR and WP should not be giving credence to such things. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation Rat Killer

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

No sources BSOleader (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, perhaps speedily. Gbooks reveals what appear to be good sources. The lack of sources on an article -- i.e. its current state -- is not in and of itself a valid reason to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also note that article @Mesoso2: was not notified of this Afd, as etiquette suggests. I've pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason for AfD if a cursory BEFORE shows multiple RS - for instance [14] - shows several substantive book sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. A very notable historic event, plenty of sources available. BSOleader, please read WP:BEFORE. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable; lack of RS cites is not a reason to delete. I do hope someone will add them, however. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:BSOleader should understand the difference between "no quotations provided" and "no available sources". Pldx1 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- A poorly presented article, needing finishing (it feels incomplete), referencing, and more. However it is about a notable subject on which WP ought to have an article, unless there is something similar to merge it with. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, the least those that claim that sources exist can do is to list them here, in a Further reading section, or preferably as actual sources in the article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Finnusertop: They're not remotely difficult to find [15]. The onus is not on us to do WP:BEFORE for the nominator. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

History of Canadian first ministers

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

Unreferenced and unnecessary WP:LISTCRUFT. Links to provincial/territorial lists duplicate Template:Canadian First Ministers, and short blurbs about x province/territory are pointless when we have "List of premiers of x," "Premier of x," "Politics of x," "History of x," and just plain "x" articles. Madg2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • None of this is referenced right now but I wouldn't think LISTCRUFT "indiscriminate or trivial lists" applies to this effort to provide a overview of prime ministerial history per Canadian jurisdiction. Is this not in a main article somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Listcruft isn't exactly the right concept here but I think the idea holds. This article has an information component, which is covered with more depth in numerous other articles, and a list component, which duplicates the list found in the Template at the bottom of all relevant articles. It doesn't provide "a overview of prime ministerial history," it provides links to a list for each province and, for some provinces, a very short summary of that province's political history. It barely touches on the actual history of first ministers or the history of the role of first minister. I don't think there's any encyclopedic value here. Madg2011 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose all the provincial histories, if referenced, could be used to flesh out Premier (Canada)#Role. In fact that main article isn't very long and needs some TLC and expansion, anyway. It's pretty ahistorical right now, and readers might benefit from some of the information that's currently in this list. And of course there is no federal content in the nominated article to worry about, anyway. So, while it's easier to say than do, I'd suggest merging relevant referenced content to Premier (Canada). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see this as particularly useful as constituted; each of the positions already has a standalone article at Prime Minister of Canada or "Premier of [Province/Territory]" which delves into the history in a lot more detail than the blurbs present here — which is precisely why fully half the sections here consist solely of a "see also" link to the main article with no additional content beyond that. I agree that it's not exactly listcruft per se, but I also agree that it's not exactly useful per se either. Bits of content here might possibly be salvageable by transferring them to the more relevant articles, but there's very little genuinely substantive need for it to be presented in this form. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

List of annexations since World War II

List of annexations since World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of annexations since World War II" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There has been a list embedded in the article Annexation since at lease 2009 (500 edits ago). The list is not large currently 14 entries and 11 back in 2009. The only recent entries to be added were for events that happened in 2014 and 2015. The scope of the list depends on the information in the article Annexation, and is closely coupled with the definition of Annexation given in the article. Since the list was created under it has been moved from "List of annexations" to "List of annexations since World War II", but it has nothing directly to do with the World War II. The list is to do with changes in International Law following World War II.

If the list is from World War II, then it would include several more annexations, and this leads into difficult territory and a POV minefield of OR and opinions. This is because before the change in International law annexation was really common. If the list is not to include definitions of why it exists then any annexation from any period could be included. This leads to fun. For example did France annex Alsace at the end of the war (take you pick as to which one) or reclaim territory rightfully hers?

So this list should be deleted because the list in the original article as examples after 1949 and the change of international. It is not a definitive list, this allows wriggle room that a definitive list does not. Without the explanation embedded the article Annexation of why this list is so restrictive it will be expanded and will not fulfil a useful function, and if the explanation is included then why have two articles? And the article name Annexation meets the bullet points for an article much better that "List of ..." -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @PBS:, 48 hours ago this article had its name changed without discussion: [16]. From its creation until just then, it has been called List of annexations.
A list of annexations is useful to readers. It fits elegantly against List of military occupations, where the tables include a column as to whether the territories were subsequently annexed or not. Some annexations take place without a prior military occupation.
Also the "not a definitive list" comment applies to a huge number of other lists in Wikipedia, including related lists such as List of military occupations, List of territorial disputes, List of border conflicts and List of invasions.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping something. List of annexations without a definition will inevitably lead to the list expanding (as is implied with the name change). If there is to be a explanation for the list then the list of 14 items may as well be included in the articleAnnexation The total size with the 14 examples is on only 28k with the list sized as about 16k, so the article is not too large and the list size of 16k does not dominate the dominate the article to its determinant.
Your use of a column for annexation in "List of military occupations" is a classic example of really bad additions to a "list of". You have not sourced one example--how are you going to source the entries of "no annexation"? Just because you have not found a source, it does not mean that no annexation took place, because an absences of a reliable source for a fact does not mean that a fact is reliably sourced. There is no time limit on you binary option so for example East Timor is "annexed"? Whether territory is annexed or not is often disputed so a simple "yes" implying a binary truth is less than helpful. Usually it takes a paragraph to briefly explain the dispute (as is done in the Annexation article), because otherwise it leads misleading information: is Alsace currently annexed? -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This post suggests a few misunderstandings. It would have been much better if you had begun a good faith discussion at the thread I opened at Talk:Annexation so would could have worked through misunderstandings these first. Here you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and I foresee this conversation is going to become convoluted very quickly.
Anyway, to respond to your points.
Before we get to the misunderstandings, your proposal needs to be broken down into two: (a), is the structured tabular format better than the random list?, and (b), is this list better in or out of the annexation article? On a., it is objecively clear to me that the table is better - on that I feel strongly. On b., I do not really mind (I doubt anyone does), but I like the elegance of having a separate list given the existence of all the other similar list topics I noted above.
As to the rest of your post, whether a territory is technically "occupied" or "annexed" is usually easy to source, and usually very clear. The piece that is frequently disputed is whether such annexation is "legal" or "recognized". Think Crimea or Tibet - we describe these as annexations on their respective articles, because they were annexations, not because we are taking a view either way as to whether they were legally recognized. As to your examples, East Timor is an independent country, and the phrase "currently annexed" for Alsace is a highly unusual description (I believe technically Germany "ceded" it to France in the last transfer).
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Given the small size of the source article, a WP:SPLIT is not useful. Also, formatting as a table is less legible than the clearly labeled examples with section headers. Wikipedia style usually prefers prose. — JFG talk 10:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom (February 2014) closer recommended incorporating the list back into Progrom article where it has remained. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- because List of military occupations does the job better. However, I would have preferred the split in that article to be c.1945, rather than 1960. I say c.1946, because the victorious powers did not immediately provide a national government. "Occupation" needs to be defined as taking complete governmental control. In the communist republics of the Eastern Europe, there continued to be a Soviet garrison and the rulers were to some degree under Soviet tutelage, but they were sovereign states rather earlier than the dates in the list. Conversely the Baltic Republics were annexed by USSR until 1991. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ann Walker (died 1854)

Ann Walker (died 1854) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ann Walker (died 1854)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on a well-off 17th century woman who was Anne Lister's lover and companion. Deprodded by the article creator a) because it has been added to a Wikiproject and b) because she was mentioned in Lister's memoirs. But therein lies the problem a) is simply a ridiculous rationale, as I've explained to the editor elsewhere and b) notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Walker doesn't merit an article independent of the Lister, from what I can see in reviewing Gbooks results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I contest the deletion given the article has been already included in the BIO project, and moreover it met the Notability (people) criteria given that Ann Walker has a primary role in Anne Lister's diaries, which are the basis for LGBT History in the XIX century (People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.)--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not at all unsympathetic to the LGBT history argument and I do agree that, if deleted, a categorized redirect should be left behind to help readers find information about her. As for your argument that it "has been already included in the BIO project" -- are you again referring to the fact that an editor has added Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to the article talk page? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am leaning delete. Are there any better sources about this woman? The only source listed is a blog that appears to be itself sourced directly from a primary-source diary. This seems a case where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anne Lister. Per WP:NOTINHERITED Coverage is all in the context of Lister, and most of this article is about Walker's relationship with Lister. There's no reason why she can't be covered in that article, and anybody coming across this article without knowledge of Lister is going to have to read Lister's article to make any sense of it or understand why it has been created, which for me is good grounds for merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - there are actually a ton of sources on google books about her relationship with Lister, consider, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Ann+Walker"+"Lister". Also, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Ann+Walker"+"crow+nest" gives a couple interesting sources from the mid- and late-1800s about her death and the ensuing inheritance of Cliff Hall/Crow Nest Estates, but these are more or less passing references. Certainly, however, her story has played an important role in a significant branch of history and sociology, which sort of passes WP:BIO #2. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anne Lister per nom and Colapeninsula: WP:NOTINHERITED.
I've been reviewing more of this editor's work, and found several similar articles that should be merged per WP:NOTINHERITED issues, as well as few copyvios. I haven't gotten nearly all the way though, so others might want to take a look. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I am finding sources, but all of them are about her relationship to Lister so far. I added a few sources so when the merge happens, there are citations. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

John Hoyle (died 1692)

John Hoyle (died 1692) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John Hoyle (died 1692)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Prod was removed by creator with no edit summary or discussion. Notability is not inherited, and the only claims to notability here are being the son of a notable person and the friend of a notable person. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, as explained in the Talk Page (I did not remove the deletion tag without discussing it), the article meet the WP:BIO John Hoyle is extensively present in the writing of Aphra Behn, one of the first women playwright in England, but he is also discussed in writing about LGBTQ History, due to his trial for Sodomy.
Boleyn and Kudpung, moreover when I tagged John Hoyle from the Aphra Behn page, the link from the Aphra Behn page was point to a "wrong" John Hoyle, lived almost 100 years after the right one. It's confusing to researcher, who, without the right page, could be mislead.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Elisa.rolle, sorry, I've struck the comment that you removed it without discussion, but as you removed it without an edit summary and without pinging anyone to join a discussion, this was missed. Misdirected links can be corrected by removing the link, rather than creating an article. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - 1 letter from Behn and a trial for sodomy is not sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Peterkingiron, It's not just one letter, one letter is what I have used as quoted text cause it was referring to the homosexuality of Hoyle. Hoyle is more present in Behn's writings, only that I do not think is the case to quote all of them. It has also being said that Hoyle was one of Behn's lovers, but that is all interpretation from their letters. We are talking of people from 400 years ago, it's difficult to discern what is true and what is implied.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. His father's notable; he isn't, nor can he inherit notability from his association, whatever it may be, with Behn. Reconsidering ... Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at the very least a much more substantial presence in Behn's article. A surprising amount is known about this fellow. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - looking over the current sources and a google books search for Hoyle and Behn, there seems to be quite a bit of coverage, enough to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Aphra Behn per notability WP:NOTINHERITED; he seems mainly notable for his relationship to her and his influence on her work. Besides that, his crimes and lawsuits don't meet WP:CRIME, and his political career was described in the only source about him as "not a particularly prominent member of the York corporation" and as "[leaving] little trace on the parliamentary records." His most notable personal achievement seems to have been obtaining the office of Lord Mayor of York, but going from List of Lord Mayors of York that doesn't seem notable enough in an of itself and fails WP:POLITICIAN. [that apparently was his father not him] - GretLomborg (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, his father was Lord Mayor. However, consider how much is known about this 17th century person. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
.I was confused and didn't realize so much of the article content and sources were about his father and not him. That makes him even less wiki-notable in my eyes per WP:NOTINHERITED. Being merely documented is not sufficient for notability. He just seems like an average well-off 17th century guy who had legal problems and an association with a wiki-notable writer. GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation

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

This is a local non-profit without any national media coverage. Fails WP:NONPROFIT Rogermx (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to have sufficient sources In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Greensboro, Pennsylvania. As far as I can make out, reading between the lines of this advert. This is a community organisation in a village of 300 people to promote its conservation, which it does by holding an arts festival. As such it is not independently notable. Sourcing is not everything. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the nomination. Promotional article for a local non-profit foundation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support for Redirect to a very brief (single sentence) mention at Greensboro, Pennsylvania, perhaps under subhead Greensboro, Pennsylvania#The industrial era and today, basing redirect on a handful of mentions in regional dailies dating to 2007-9, about a dispute over custody of some historic artifacts, a fundraiser... small potatoes stuff but plausibly enough for a redirect. However, the article as it stands is mere puffery for a small (very small) town charity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Elise Andaya

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up virtually nothing to suggest that she passes WP:GNG. A couple of trivial mention in News, and a few more trivial mentions in Books. A comment was made on the talk page making the argument that she passes NSCHOLAR, but with a high citation count of 32, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. She is an associate professor with a few moderately cited papers and some book awards. As her career progresses she may well make a larger impact in her field, but it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talkcontribs)
  • Keep she passes CREATIVE for attention given to her work in the form of reviews. I added 2 reviews to articles I have access to, but there are others. Here is the list of journals reviewing her work (some need subscriptions & EBSCO links are often hard to view, let me know if you need help): 1) New West Indian Guide, 2) Journal of Pan African Studies, 3) Latin American Politics and Society 4) Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and 5) American Ethnologist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:NSCHOLAR per nom. It doesn't seems right to judge the notability different scholars by different standards based on how they choose to publish their work (e.g. in book form vs. peer reviewed papers). Seems like a fairly average anthropologist professor. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per our deletion and editing policies. The subject's notability and sourcing also seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass notability criteria. I'm not in the business of stretching our criteria beyond all reason to satisfy misplaced inclusionism. Like most people, there won't be enough written about the subject until 100 years hence, which is honestly more fair than what we're attempting right now. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:Prof as GS cites are far too small for high-cited field of pop-pschology WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep - This Associate Professor passes both WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- published at least one book with a Uni publisher:
CONCEIVING CUBA: REPRODUCTION, WOMEN, AND THE STATE IN THE POST-SOVIET ERA, by Elise Andaya (Rutgers University Press; 192 pages; $80 hardcover, $26.95 paperback). Examines new constraints on women considering motherhood given Cuba's economic troubles in the post-Soviet period.
With the additional sources above, it's a Keep for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability. Only 17 sources have cited the book. Usually one starts looking for for 1000 cites WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete, not seeing notability here for a stand alone article. Average associate professor at this point as presented. Kierzek (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The article reveals that she has published one monograph, no doubt a tidied up version of her doctoral thesis. I do not think that ought to be enough to pass SCHOLAR. She seems currently to be a young lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dutch constellations

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

A one sentence article basically about the template and links to Dutch cartographers/explorers. All the information on it is present elsewhere. This article does not appear to serve much of a purpose. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This includes anonymous editors: User:203.205.34.102, User: 1.53.54.186 These edits being a suspected sockpuppets from the edits here.[18] ), and recently User:190.10.149.71[19] - all relating to the same subject and/or Dutch articles. Notable all of these editors have appeared in this page's own revision history and all around the same time and all suspiciously after Zingvin's initial edits .[20] Another sock suspect is User:Ziaozi who added this. [21] or User:42.117.77.225 here.[22] (with User:Zingvin adding these categories here.[23])
My own complaint is that these edits are seemingly nationalistic and greatly overstate their importance, as I stated after this edit.[24] This editor has multiple times, as seen on the "Revision history of "Constellation""[25], repeatedly has added the same text several times, and ignored others advice. Worst, they have not engaged via the Talkpage, and have avoid gaining consensus. Also the editors above argued on Dutch constellations here.[26] and here.[27] Worse again, they ignored advice. (Further discussions of this being overstated appear under "More on Plancius" here.[28]
I am also concerned with User:AstroLynx, whose discussions seems to promote rather than following gaining good consensus and avoiding WP:NPOV as highlighted in this discussion on Petrus Plancius here.[29] AstroLynx did similar things here.[30], and notably stating "Bayer is therefore often mistakenly credited for introducing them." and really looks like WP:OR
Please note that I am not in any way involved in the creation or promotion of the above-mentioned page. If you have any problems with my edits regarding the origin of the southern constellations, for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources, please address them directly on the appropriate talk pages or on my talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"...for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources." Sorry evidence says the contrary, as per your admissions to my linked pages above. All I'm saying is the recent behavior is suspicious and likely agenda driven. You may or may not not be involved, but the direct evidence is as presented as I see and experienced it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet, you will have to present better evidence. Otherwise it is just malicious slander. AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@AstroLynx: "If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet..." Please read more carefully I've never suggested such things, simply based on your many useful contributions in your own contribution list. Those that could be sockpuppets are those mostly reverting Dutch pages only to support this topic as IP addresses. (I've only mentioned you here to be transparent.) If I've inferred you are a sockpuppet, I unreservedly extend my apologies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Apologies accepted – discussion closed. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Note; I have recently greatly modified the Constellation page to remove this bias. Possible sockpuppetry here needs further investigation IMO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Can we block anonymous users? If so, this should also be taken to WP:SPI. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"Can we block anonymous users?" Yes if they are proven sockpuppests. Multiple users reverting documents for the same kind of agenda just seems to say yes!
As it plainly says above: "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The question of how Dutch astronomers classified the heavens into constellations is an interesting issue, which might usefully have an article. What we currently have is Category:Constellations listed by Petrus Plancius, which is inaccurately named since it covers other cartographers too, and the template. This article is trying to be a main article for the category and template, but is currently failing to be such, as it is a minute stub. We have recently had a lot of category-spamming on Dutch subjects, but this is not probably part of it. I would suggest renaming the category to reflect its content and tagging this article for expansion, unless we have a general article on the subject already, I mean on the three astronomic cartographers involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rozeta Gujejiani

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

Not in any way notable, does not meet criteria in WP:ACADEMIC Scrabble Scribble (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, this article was created on 21 September 2015 by გიორგი ჩუბინიძე, and is almost a word-for-word copy of the article he created in the Georgian wp on 20 August 2015, if it is kept will need to have a translation notice? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Greetings! Material presented in this article is verified and trusted, so reason for deleting it is not fair. It is partly translated and checked with relevant sources. Please, cancel requirement for deleting. Sincerely, Giorgi Chubinidze. გიორგი ჩუბინიძე (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @გიორგი ჩუბინიძე: It's not enough that the information is correct, the subject has to be notable. The notability criteria for academics on the English Wikipedia can be found at WP:PROF. I have not found sources in English that show that Gujejiani is notable. Can you give us any in Georgian that discuss her or her work? (We can use Google Translate to read them, but it's hard to search if you don't know Georgian). – Joe (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fair or not, GS cites are zero. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC).
    • @Xxanthippe: I'm not sure GS is going to be a very useful metric for a historian writing exclusively (?) in Georgian. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • GS list writings in Georgian, as you will see from the link. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC).
        • Yes but it's not nearly as good at indexing and calculating metrics for non-English scholarship. It's also comparatively poor at finding history and humanities papers. See [31]. This is why WP:PROF cautions "the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". – Joe (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That is one opinion, ten years old. Since then GS has expanded in scope and, if citations exist, GS will usually find them. GS will certainly find citations to humanities subjects. However, citations in humanities, particularly by older scholars, tend to be fewer than in the sciences. The difference of citation patterns between fields is well-known to anybody who frequents academic pages, and allowance is (or should) be made. One compares like with like; theology with theology- computer science with computer science. If notability is to be proved, sources have to be found and in this case they have not been yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete. The article makes no case for notability by scholarly impact (not just publication) or in any other way. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone here turns up significantly better sources about the subject, but I suspect such sources would be in Georgian, making them difficult for non-Georgians to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless additional sources are forthcoming. There's nothing I can find. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- You cannot expect to find a lot of English language sources on a Georgian subject. An academic with 103 articles and 2 monographs has a large body of work, but you cannot expect English language citation indices to record this. Transliteration is not an exact science and even a minor difference in that is liable to upset the count from any citation index. If Georgian WP thinks her notable, I do not think we English one should dissent. Translation notices are only appropriate where the English needs improving. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Nowadays powerful search engines can be expected to find citations, if they exist. It has never been a Wikipedia policy that if sources cannot be found, it can be assumed that they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC).
What about these cites I found on GS? [32] [33] [34]? Not having an opinion per se but zero GS cites seems to be incorrect. Regards SoWhy 09:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Well done in digging out these 4 cites, but they are not in-depth enough for WP:Author and are not enough in number for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC).
I don't see any articles in those 4 links (rather 3) authored by the suspect. [35] here we only have a reference to something she's written, not the article itself by Rozeta Gujejiani, same [36] here as well, and [37] here - not even that. So GS count remains at 0. I can find nothing in Georgian as well. The person is not notable even by Georgian standards of academia as far as I understand them. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tinko Simov

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If the individual played a major role in Bulgarian politics, it's not forthcoming from the article's sole source. I didn't find anything substantial in database searches for the English-language name. If his role is worth mentioning and if there perhaps are some Bulgarian-language sources that bear it out, it would be more appropriate to write an article on anarchism in Bulgaria or section on the region's history than a dedicated biographical article. Ultimately, there isn't enough reliable sourcing to describe the topic in encyclopedic depth, nevertheless to do basic justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile mentions to use as redirect targets (article is orphaned). PROD'd in 2010. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete of the two sources, only one is not a dead link and I am not sure as to its overall notability. As the nominator said, if the individual had played a major role in Bulgarian politics, you would expect there to be more coverage readily available and included within the article. Would definitely be open to keeping it should new evidence arise demonstrating/proving notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - @Czar:, @TheSandDoctor:, there is an online version of the one google books hit for the individual. It is a book/pamphlet written by an anarchist, Georges Balkanski, about one of Simov's collaborators, Georges Cheïtanov. It is in french and here is the link[38]. Cheïtanov does not have an article. However, given the number of hits written in Cyrillic (most or all in Bulgarian) for his at google books, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Тинко+Симов", at least some of which are certainly about this Simov, it seems he is probably covered in multiple sources, and probably at times in depth, as with the biography of Cheïtanov. I think he passes NPOV and NOR as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
We can't keep on probability—what sources have depth and can be used to write an article? Surely not a bunch of mentions. Also why did you use http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html—it has no signs of reliability... Note that our Bulgarian article too has no sources. czar 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow to respond. I didn't mean to say, "there must be sources", but rather, look at all of these sources in Bulgarian. I see most of them in snippet view, but it is not too hard to string together snippets to find out if a particular source is in depth. I have just started trying to add sources to the article from google books, and will try to do a bit more tonight or this weekend. If you can read Bulgarian (which I cannot), or have experience, do you know if topwar.ru is a reliable source? It seems somewhere between a high level blog and a news site. Simov's coverage in that source is certainly in depth. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes non-English sources give the impression of depth but have little, which is why it's necessary to read the actual contents to argue that there's enough substance with which to write an article. For example, topwar.ru (Военное обозрение) appears to be more of a blog with a big forum. It doesn't have a presence on ruwp but has been used in some enwp articles, likely without discrimination. The only article they have on Simov (Тинко Симов) is this 2015 section, but its text rips wholesale from bgwp's pre-2015... so that and no explicit editorial policy/pedigree for accuracy leaves little trust for reliability. Is there perhaps some separate, larger Bulgarian military history action or topic that might be able to house the information you found? czar 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll keep chipping away at the statements cited to either web-page, sourcing them to books. I've struck weak from my !vote, for what it is worth. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure if the material would be a good fit anywhere else. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- For a Bulgarian subject, we cannot expect to have a lot of English language sources. However, I observe the Bulgarian WP has an article and assume that says much the same as the English one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron, the Bulgarian article was already noted for having no sourcing... czar 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Regrettably I do not read Bulgarian, but as there is a Bulgarian WP article, we should follow their lead. If the article is removed from AFD there we should also remove it. Until then we should assume good faith. Even a site pushing a strong POV is not necessarily unreliable, merely suspicious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron, but that's not how AfD or AGF works? Every language WP has its own notability standards, and more importantly, each has its own pace for addressing unsourced articles. The Bulgarian article has no sources, so there is nothing for us to take from it. Good faith is about assuming that others mean well and are trying to help the project, especially as the Internet decontextualizes their actions. It doesn't mean blind faith in assuming that another's work cannot be checked/verified. czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The requirement is that articled should be verifiable, bit that they should be verified by references. If a Bulgarian WP's AFD removed the article, we should follow, but until then, I would prefer to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not following your logic here. A "keep" rationale based on appearance in other Wikipedias is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid for reasons I already explained czar 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • http://ikonomov.a-bg.net is also unreliable and should be removed. (It's used in double refs, and not knowing what exactly the other ref covers, I'd prefer not to leave something unsourced by removing it myself) czar 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding a-bg.net, I'm not sure if this site is clearly unreliable. The site is now anarchy.bg and is run by the Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria (Федерация на Анархистите в България). Clearly the site is POV and should be used carefully and in conjunction with other hopefully more reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 ? Well it certainly doesn't have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, as our definition of reliability, and if it helps, we certainly wouldn't use a partisan English-language anarchist site as a reliable source for historical information, either. We're not even getting a clear lineage of authorship on a-bg.net... czar 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not know its reputation and defer to you, if you are more familiar with it. I think removing the link is disengenuous to our reader, per WP:SWYGI, but I agree that it is good that we now have published oook citations for most (all?) of the material in the article. Regarding your second statement, we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources, I don't know if they are anarchist, and I agree that when used, usually they should be improved. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources

Not for general facts when the partisan sources have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which is what makes a site reliable and which http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html does not do. (Mind that anarchy.bg is separate/different in organization from ikonomov.a-bg.net.) Since you stacked the refs, I could use your help confirming that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems we are talking past each other regarding partisan sources, but before requesting that we put that issue aside, I want to reiterate that I am not particularly interested in the source except in as much as it is the richest source I found on Simov and our readers might be well served if pointed in that direction. In any case, the link to the original source of the article exists in the article history and can be found if someone needs it.
Regarding your other point, I do not know what you mean by "stacked the refs". Perhaps you are referring to the process of adding an abundance of loosely related to the subject references to "save" an article on AfD. If so, I did not mean to do that, I only meant to provide refs for the article from the google books search I linked as you suggested on the 15th. Regarding helping confirm that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs, I am not sure how to do that for snippets. Do you speak Bulgarian? Do you see snippets for the pages I provided when searching for Тинко Симов or a related string? Sometimes it is requested that a quote be added from a reference to establish connection between the reference and the point in the article. Is that what you are requesting? If so, I again want to note that I do not speak Bulgarian and am relying on google translate (and I do not use a Cyrillic keyboard and was forced to rely on a slow process in some cases where directly copy-pasting text was less possible); so while it is perfectly acceptable for you to make such a request, I am not sure how best to respond given the amount of time complying would take. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I meant that if a paragraph reads "Fact A. Fact B.[ref 1][ref 2]" and ref 1 is removed, then either facts A and B should be verifiable in ref 2, or the facts should be removed (so the content matches the sourcing). I thought you'd be familiar with the contents of each source as you added the refs czar 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree that facts should be removed, I'll double check and add {{cn}} to statements for which I haven't found anything other than the a-bg.net article. I propose we leave these statements in at least until the end of the AfD, so that anyone who sees our discussion can see what material will be removed due to questions regarding that source. I'll also remove the verification needed tags where appropriate, if you don't mind. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Filipino Americans in higher education

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

Reads like WP:NOTESSAY Gbawden (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Repurpose as Rise of higher education in Phillipines or similar. It should be possible to add paragraphs between the Pensionado Act and the initiative under Marcos and as to what has happened since. If we have another article on the subject, I would support merge/redirect. The final paragraph on Filipino academics in US should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gloria Carter Spann

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

Fails WP:BIO. Relatives of presidents are not inherently notable; she was not a first lady and had no official role during her brother's presidency. She needs to pass WP:BIO on her own, and she fails at that. Kbabej (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- probably NN. Notability is not inherited (e.g. from a brother). She campaigned for her brothers' election, but so did lots of people; and I am not sure that being the victim of attempted blackmail is notable, unless this was particularly notorious. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the very interesting ! vote by ip (68.95.106.101) at the last AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note, I've now added this material to the article and provided references; she appears to me to meet GNG, NPOV, NOR, and V. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jimmy_Carter#Family where the subject is mention. Not notable for a stand-alone article; the article is completely uncited -- if someone wants to dig for sources, they could restore it. For now, a redirect is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I still day not separately notable. Either delete or better redirect to family section of her brother. I have read the IP's contribution on the previous AFD and still do not consider it enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added refs for Spann's life from newspapers.com, three are about Spann particularly, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12521596/, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12425167/ukiah_daily_journal/, and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12425443/jimmys_sister_out_of_tune_the/. Each of these were carried in different forms by papers throughout the country, as was her obituary. Much of her biography can also be verified in book form by searching around google books, although most (all?) of these mentions are in books or chapters of books about Jimmy. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly mentioned sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. We simply do not delete articles on people with obituaries (not paid death notices) in the New York Times [39], Los Angeles Times [40], and Washington Post [41], regardless of their actual accomplishments or even-more-famous relatives. These people have been noted; therefore (per WP:GNG) they are notable. There's also a short obit in American Motorcyclist [42] if you want a little more color, and something else she was known as besides Jimmy's brother and a blackmail victim: she was well known as a motorcycle enthusiast.

Luftwaffe Honor plate

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

An apparently trivial decoration; significant RS coverage not found either in English (link) nor in German (link), just passing mentions and / or non RS. A de.wiki article exists but is equally unconvincing for notability: link. Article includes no sources, apart from links to self-published web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Potential Keep -- It is appropriate to have an article on an award (if verifable), but probably not even a list of awardees. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure if it was an official decoration; it might have been a personal gift from Goering, by the look of things and given the dearth of coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect – the award existed from June 1942 until December 1944 and could be presented to soldiers of the Luftwaffe who fought in ground combat, similar in nature to the Honour Goblet of the Luftwaffe for aerial crews and paratroopers. The honour plate was replaced by the Honour Roll Clasp of the Luftwaffe. If the consensus here is to delete the article, I would suggest creating an article "Awards and decorations of the Luftwaffe" and article similar to Awards and decorations of the Kriegsmarine by @OberRanks:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.105.23 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
92.204.105.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. The award itself is notable, although its recipients aren't inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- so far, none of the Keep voters have offered any sources. This looks to be a trivial award. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving



Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=791976682"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science"; 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