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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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

Global policy

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

Unsourced article with an arbitrary collection of society topics. While there seems to be a high level overlap between some agenda items of e.g. the United Nations or WEF, the terms "global policy" or "global priorities" seem arbitrary. There is no evidence of those agenda items being called or agreed as "global policy". As such, propose deletion as essay, original research and/or opinion piece. See also Talk:Global policy. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • New article in development. See my comments on the talk page, as requested. -Inowen (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Its rather late, in America. I will check in on this in the morning. -Inowen (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Emergent Communication

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

Delete as per WP:NEO. The current sourcing does not appear to even mention the term. Searches turned up a few trivial mentions of the term, but they did not appear to be about the subject which is covered in this article. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Marketroid neologism. The "references" weren't — the whole section was irrelevant news items with a bonus of WP:DAILYMAIL. Search results are false positives. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete New age waffle Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Unpopularity

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

This might be too bold, but I do not see what purpose this article serves. It is written like a sociology essay, and does not provide encyclopedic content. It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Condense to what is non-essayish and merge and redirect to popularity. The effects of the absence of something are still a reflection on the nature of that thing. bd2412 T 21:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect or delete (for the reasons noted already). -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination is certainly bold as it's the first time I've seen the complaint that "It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition", which seems to be self-contradictory. The complaint that it's "like a sociology essay" seems rather different and is bizarre too, because that's the type of content we'd expect for this topic. Finally the claim that it "does not provide encyclopedic content" is empty per WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. So, there doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. My impression is the nominator is expecting something else or something more but they don't say what that is and they don't seem to have made any effort to improve the article themself.
Merger might be feasible but we're here to decide on the question of deletion and AFD is not cleanup. The proposed target of Popularity is over 30K and so it's reasonable to split the topic per WP:SIZE. Unpopularity is certainly a thing in its own right, rather than simply an absence or negation, because it has clear and distinct effects such as social rejection and bullying. I was looking at some talks by Jordan Peterson recently because he's in the news. In one, he made the point that the most important thing for parents to do is to socialise their infants by the age of four because otherwise they will be rejected by other children and this will then ruin their life. The page in question currently seems to focus on adolescents rather than infants so this indicates that's there's good scope for expansion.
Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Selective Merge to popularity. It also makes no sense why an article about a broad topic focuses on such a specific area of the topic (ie. popularity among adolescents). Maybe some of the content would be better suited for an article such as Interpersonal relationship.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep this next example is a terrible and ancient AfD discussion, but popularity was once nominated for deletion and was kept: [1] I'm not sure how unpopularity is any different. Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED and all that, but it's been the subject of academic research in a very similar way to its sister article. I'd keep and rework. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above. Massive academical sources coverage.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

G.C. Dilsaver

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I find a few results searching google news, they are a bit bloggy and not really about Dilsaver but about how his book's inspired the blogs author. Results on google books are also mostly about his book and are passing. Neither of these sets of results give anything that would show the subject has enough coverage to write an article that passes NPOV concerns, especially given the promotional nature of the article and of the coverage. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Maintain - Maintain as secondary reference supported. All claims have references that have been previously verified.

The claim to notability is the Catholic Pontifical University of America's stating in its review of his work that they consider him "the father of Christian psychology" [1] [2] His work has been critiqued as the first truly Thomistic psychology by [3].

International recognition: [4]

and [5] His book was chosen and endorsed among the very few books offered with membership from this prestigious international organization.

Dilsaver also has a full page on his work in the introduction to the definitive english edition of [6] [7]

I took much of the language to describe his work from the website, not as a promotion per se but to accurately convey its nature and claims. John Galvin (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/imago-dei-psychotherapy-dilsaver/
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20131203134340/http://cuapress.cua.edu/books/viewbook.cfm?book=XDID
  3. ^ Kenneth Baker, S.J. in the August/September 2008 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review
  4. ^ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/08/14/restoring-the-image-of-god-in-our-lives-protects-our-mental-health/
  5. ^ https://humanlife.ie/
  6. ^ John Paul II The Theology of the Body; A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein Pauline BOOKS & MEDIA Boston
  7. ^ https://www.scribd.com/doc/79394300/Waldstein-Introduction-to-Theology-of-the-Body
  • Delete as mere PROMO for non-notable author of non-notable books promoting his personal, nonnotable FRINGE theory of mental illness. inadequate sourcing found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The claims about this author are sourced to a few press releases. The material he has written looks as though it falls under WP:FRINGE and there are just not sufficient WP:RS available. Notability has not been established when judged against the criteria listed by the nominator. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Maintain All of the above are taken from independent reviews not "press releases." The above blanket statements for delete are unsupported and do not address the citations notated. The Catholic Pontifical University of America Press is not a fringe institution, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and the London Catholic Herald are highly respected institutions, as is the Broadcaster EWTN and Sapientia Press (who publishes only a few top Catholic writers, unless one is unjustly discounting these institutions because they are Catholic. Dilsaver's book on psychology is foreworded by no one less than Daniel N. Robinson, who has his own bio on Wiki. Fringe does not mean controversial.John Galvin (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have struck out the vote as a second vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Possible keep -- The list of publications is not a long one. However the claim that he is regarded as "father of Christian psychology" (if true) ought to be enough to merit keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

How do you like them apples

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

An idiom, and a famous line from Good Will Hunting, but there's nothing that justifies an encyclopedia article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value. Article mostly consists of mentions in popular culture only. JIP | Talk 13:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Old West Slavic

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

Really doesn't add any new information. Topics already covered by West Slavic languages and Proto-Slavic. Would request deletion, merge, or redirect. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge is probably the best option. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pahari language

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

Too confusing to have this article and Pahari languages. Ambiguity around the term Pahari should be discussed at the main article. Batternut (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pahari languages - this is relevant information but should be incorporated into the main article. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the point of the nominator. Could they care to elaborate? Though we should probably make sure we're on the same page first? The proposed target – Pahari languages as it is currently titled though it ought to be renamed to Northern Indo-Aryan languages – is about a hypothetical subgroup of the Indo-Aryan languages. The page currently nominated for deletion on the other hand is a disambiguation page (or a WP:BCA if you prefer). Why should a disambiguation page be merged into one of the articles that it disambiguates? There are too many entries to fit into a hatnote and there isn't a primary topic anyway. Though the hypothetical group is probably the primary topic for "Pahari languages" (plural), "Pahari language" (singular) most commonly refers to either the Pahari language of Pakistan (not a member of the group), or to one or another of the Western Pahari languages. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:PLURALPT the plural should redirect to its singular, or (rarely) the singular should redirect to the plural. As Uanfala has just had Pahari languages moved to Northern Indo-Aryan languages (good move!), that issue is largely dealt with. But we still have a bit of a mess: Pahari language and Pahari languages should produce the same page. Pahari languages should either redirect to Pahari language, or they both redirect to the disambiguation page at Pahari. Thus this page should be merged into Pahari#languages, which would then be structured as the Indian dba. Batternut (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
But the plural and the singular have different meanings here (see second paragraph of WP:PLURALPT) – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I doubt the distinction in usage is sufficiently significant or reliable - both singular and plural need disambiguating. Batternut (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The plural is obviously never used to refer to any of the individual languages, and the only overalap between the two is in the singular's use in phrases like "a Pahari language". – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Emergent Communication

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

Delete as per WP:NEO. The current sourcing does not appear to even mention the term. Searches turned up a few trivial mentions of the term, but they did not appear to be about the subject which is covered in this article. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Marketroid neologism. The "references" weren't — the whole section was irrelevant news items with a bonus of WP:DAILYMAIL. Search results are false positives. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete New age waffle Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Polydeism

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

I argued against the deletion of this article over a decade ago, but I have revisited it, and no longer believe that it can survive in accordance with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. The article remains a mix of several unrelated ideas for which the available sources are poor and anticipated better sources were never found. I would now delete. bd2412 T 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • comment Almost all hits for this clearly mean what is more commonly called polytheism. I need to take a little time looking at the cites, but my sense is that using it to mean multiple, non-intervening deities is a coinage which hasn't really caught on. Possibly merger is the solution. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • A merge and redirect would be an acceptable solution, if there is enough content to justify mentioning this in Polytheism. bd2412 T 12:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The article only demonstates that a very few people have ever advocated the idea, and some of them clearly never by name. It is not a widely studied or accepted idea and shows no sign of meriting its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep, the presentation of the ideas in this article is a bit off, but it can certainly be improved, whether in this article or at the Polytheism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2116 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge a brief description of the concept into the polytheism article. I couldn't find anyone who supports actually takes a polydeist position, save a parody facebook page. Alex (Talk) 20:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)



Prodded articles


History

A Program for Monetary Reform

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

Appears to be a hoax or urban legend. No secondary RS in article or Google search. Being promoted by fringe monetary policy advocacy groups. SPECIFICO talk

  • Comment Why do you believe it's a hoax? Did some research on it and haven't found anyone disputing it, in fact found a journal article possibly mentioning it: [2] SportingFlyer (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody's disputing it because the article is not real. Academics don't cite or discuss fake articles. The story that this is a key policy document written by one of the top economists of his day, Fisher, but never published and never cited until this mysterious copy showed up -- ostensibly from a single obscure library -- strains credulity. Hundreds of University libraries would have retained copies of a significant document by eminent monetary economist Fisher. And the context in which it was "discovered" is to bolster a fringe activist campaign. Not in the course of research, library cataloguing, or any other plausible routine. Note that there has been discussion of 100% reserve banking from time to time, including by Fisher. But that is not the same as the claim as to the existence or content of this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: [3] (note the citations) Also here from 1996: [4] The dates are important since the sources show this was "found" by the guy mentioned in the article around 1995. I don't think it's fake, but I do think it's been blown out of proportion. Not sure what to recommend on deletion grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge - Looks real to me. Its certainly a Fringe topic within economics, and probably shouldn't be covered in any depth in an article like Fractional reserve banking, but we do have an article about Fisher's proposals, such as Full-reserve banking and Chicago plan. This article could redirect to Fisher, or better, to Chicago plan. To me it seems that most of the citations to this paper, and there are a lot, couches the paper in a discussion of Fisher's ideas and isn't really about the paper. I don't think the paper passes NBOOK, and we don't usually have articles about every academic manuscript that has a dozen or two citations. I could maybe be convinced that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, I think better would be some energy put into those other articles as merge destinations. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lilo Gloeden

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

While courageous, her anti-Nazi resistance work does not merit an article. Her marginal involvement in the 20 July plot does not rise to even WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Otho Travers

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

His only claim to notability is that he was friends with a famous person. Yes that person he was friends with and served with is definitely notable, but Travers is just a soldier that happened to be mentioned in memoirs etc. Not independently notable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The question here in my mind is whether Travers qualifies under WP:AUTHOR or WP:SOLDIER(8), or alternatively if this should be renamed to cover the book. He is covered a bit, e.g. [5], however his main claim for fame is authoring the "The Journal of Thomas Otho Travers (1813-1820)" which is an important source for covering Stamford Raffles (including the founding of Singapore) and is widely quoted with some coverage of Travers resulting from the quotation.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Hmmm, interesting, hadn't considered it from that perspective. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic but you may be onto something. The article would need completely reworked and I contend that as it stands it's not notable based on it's claims to notability. Anyone able to do work? Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm undecided on standalone notability here myself. In some cases such works can confer notability. In this case it doesn't appear to me as clear cut (either way, though WP:NOTPAPER), but I'm not a subject area expert - this is what I saw in my BEFORE. In terms of work - re-purposing this to focus on the journal (either named for the journal, or for Travers) is fairly easy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to The Journal of Thomas Otho Travers (1813-1820), a notable book. I ran a couple of searches and didn't find much on the man (he seems to have been a successful East India Company career soldier, successful enough, that is, to retire to a nice house in Ireland.) He had notable ancestor and a daughter, so he is listed in genealogies. His book is notable. Here's a book review: [6] E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The article will need some work but yes I think this may be the better course of action here. Canterbury Tail talk 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • After doing a little more searching, without the middle name, and and as "Captain Travers" more 19th century sources turn up. I am no longer certain that Travers should be redirected to his book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • He was also a major later. He is in some 30-40 books (with and without middle name, various filters to account it him). Often, however, as brief mentions in regards to some thing or another Raffles told him to do, or mentioning the journal. I did find one title (though I am not sure of publisher quality and it is recent) where he appears in 49 different pages.
  • Keep. Undecided on rename to book. But the journal should be clearly mentioned in the article if not.19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've expanded the article based on his extensive coverage in a biography of Raffles: Wurtzburg, Charles Edward. Raffles of the eastern isles. Hodder and Stoughton, 1954. Travers's role in the East India Company as well as in Raffles life in England is discussed in-depth in that book. In 1820, travers was appointed Resident and Commandant at Singapore, to replace Robert Townsend Farquhar, although Farquhar did not relinquish the position and Travers let it go. This position would, I think, have given Travers a pretty good clain to NPOL, but even without it there is plenty of material in reliable sources to write an article that passes V, NPOV, NOR, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work on the expansion. There is enough now to merit keeping. Edwardx (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - Excellent work everyone, the article is so much better now and more clearly notable, I withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

George R. Ursul

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

Article is sourced to ancestry.com and does not establish why Ursul is notable. A search on Google News finds nothing. A search on Google Books finds his name mentioned only in bibliographies citing a book he wrote, as well as a three line mention in the Harvard alumni newsletter. Nothing on newspapers.com. A search on JSTOR finds a few papers he authored but nothing about him specifically. He does not appear to have an H-Index that would qualify him under NPROF, nor has he held a named chair or anything similar. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete However the delete rationale is wrong. The article is sourced to www.familysearch.org, a wholly owned website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is totally different than the commercial family history website ancestry.com. However, in theory the depository location used to find a document is not very important. There may be some sources findable through familysearch.org that would pass as reliable sources, although most are either user generated or primary and thus not useful to establish notability. The main exception is their obituary database, but even that aims to be very broad. In this case, the cited document is the Social Security Death Index entry, apparently for Ursul, which is a primary source for his death of the level that would exist for every person in the US who someone can claim death benefits from social security for, which in no way adds towards notability. The sources cited in the nomination also in no way add up to notability as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a non-notable historian. No notable works. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you find notability that I missed.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC) My error, I missed the 3 book reviews. Weak Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He was a Fulbright scholar, one of his (edited) books has multiple published reviews, he had an obituary published in a major (but local) newspaper, and he was listed in a specialist who's-who publication. I've added more sources to the article documenting these things. It's still a weak case for WP:PROF, but I think there's a better case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I've added another source which reports a lecture by Ursul and has a ~150 word/3 inch profile of Ursul in the Lowell Sun. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Attack on RUC Birches barracks

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

I'm not sure the sources are sufficient to show notability here. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I see multiple book references for this event. It could possibly be merged if there is an appropriate target, but it definitely passes WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and well sourced to third party sources. Additional comment, you keep nominating articles with "not sure if notable". If you're not sure then don't nominate. You should only nominate when you're sure, based on policies, that it's not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge with Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. There were hundreds of similar attacks on RUC and British Army bases during the Troubles, many of which caused multiple deaths and injuries. This one caused no deaths and few injuries. The only thing different about it is that it involved a digger, a tactic which was repeated in the Loughgall ambush. Indeed, this attack is often only mentioned in relation to the Loughgall ambush. Most of what's in the "Attack" section is already noted on the Tyrone Brigade article, and the quote in the "Aftermath" section can be moved there too as it's about the Tyrone Brigade in general rather than this attack. ~Asarlaí 15:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade did not use this tactic in "hundreds of similar attacks" they used this tactic a grand total of two times, the successful Attack on RUC Birches barracks on 11 August 1986 and the unsuccessful attack at Loughgall. This was one of the IRA's most significant attacks of the period and most significant of 1986. Although nobody was killed at the Birches, it was an operation which demonstrated a tactical approach still more sophisticated than at Ballygawley and was a defining moment in the IRA's campaign & The Troubles in general. Tdv123 08:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Subcontractors Register

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

No indication of notability of this publication is given in the article. The only source is findagrave.com and a search doesn't reveal any other sources. Rusf10 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for sourcing. This is an old time annual directory now used as a reference by historians and other researchers looking for info on 19th and early 20th century New York City building contractors. (Also note that Nom has a reputation, documented on his talk page, for bringing many articles to AfD inappropriately, PRODding others, and failing to follow WP:BEFORE.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:PERSONALATTACK by E.M. Gregory. To be fair maybe we should also note that his behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANIs (but let's try to stay on topic). The article has been unsourced for over a decade, should we wait around another decade to see if sources magically appear?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes Rusf10 we can wait. Slow pace of development due to lack of magic is not a valid reason to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Walter O'Malley (no merge necessary, as the journal is already mentioned in Walter's article). Sport's Illustrated calls Subcontractors Register a "standard work" which suggests that it might be a useful search term. The periodical also gets passing mention in two places in Walter's biography: https://books.google.com/books?id=-PwoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq="Sub-contractors+Register". However, I don't see enough that would suggest a non-OR, NPOV article about it. One concern I have is if the other publisher, Joseph O'Malley, were to someday have an article, then it wouldn't be as obvious to have the redirect point to Walter. I suppose that may come about, but right now I don't see much info about this Joseph O'Malley. I'll point out that this Joseph O'Malley isn't the same as the Marquette philosophy professor Joseph James O'Malley whose writings are frequently referred to on google books (nor the same as Joe O'Malley). Smmurphy(Talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I've struck my destination in favor of target proposed by IP below, The Blue Book Network. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (or Redirect per Smmurphy, above.) With literally no references cited in the article, and nothing that I could dig up, there is apparently is just the passing mentions in the bio mentioned above. Not nearly enough to pass WP:N.
  • references have been added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't read the NYT refs because they are pay walled, but they are being used to support a paragraph about O'Mally and rather than about the topic of the article. So I am very skeptical that they provide significant coverage of the topic. The other source merely mentions the topic in passing, so does not established notability either. Yilloslime TC 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph about O'Malley since it's off topic. Certainly relevant for a Joseph O'Malley article, but not this one. Yilloslime TC 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Because there were two O'Malleys involved, and because continues to be used as a somewhat widely cited reference work (on the New York building trades a century ago - the scholarly library I use holds a full set), and becasue it was issued annually over the course of decades, I think it makes more sense to keep it as a free standing article. Just tag it for sourcing and hope the next grad student coming to the page will add a source or two.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources you added have any in-depth coverage of the subject. The book you added has only a single sentence mentioning the subject. You've only proved the subcontractors register existed, not its significance.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to The Blue Book Network. This article, A century of building Bridges in the construction industry, traces the roots of the Blue Book to O'Malley's Subcontractor's Register. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Standon Preceptory

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and is only a sentence long too.TH1980 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added coverage of it, both sources are tertiary sources so it should pass GNG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to Standon, Hertfordshire. There's almost no info other than it existed. Not enough for a separate article as it stands. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I added some basic historical information and references and I think the article satisfies GNG. I'm not totally opposed to merging to Standon, Hertfordshire if people think the additional context would benefit the reader, but that is a conversation that can happen outside of AfD. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If the AFD is closed as keep, then there will have to be consensus to merge, it can't just be boldly done if this is closed as "keep". I agree maybe it should be merged, I was tempted to say that but because of the tertiary sources I though it might be OK as a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points mentioned. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding it, if the AFD is closed as "no consensus" or something like keep but a merge can be done, then it could still probably be boldly merged. I would be happy with a close of "keep" or "merge", or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not sure this is the most reliable source, but here is a paper about it: Brown, J. A. The Standon Hospice, Transactions of the East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society, Volume 1, East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society Stephen Austin & Sons, 1901 p289-291. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep enabled by expansion and sourcing of the article during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - per expanded sourcing currently in article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- a preceptor of the Hospitallers is the equivalent of a priory in other orders. We normally regard all pre-Reformation British monasteries as notable. The article (though short) is well-sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Kreuz

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

No evidence of anything other then inherited notability (well for one of the two people it seems to be about). In fact half the article is about someone else entirely and does not even talk about Marianne Kreuz (apart from one or two throw away lines about her death, thus she was not even on this journey).Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
in actuality most of it is about the journey to Paris, with only about the last three or four lines being about finding out about the death and coming home. I shall; remove the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Userfy (assuming mainspacing mistake) Delete. Maybe even Speedy. Utter mess. Does not seem to assert notability, and beyond that it is a disjointed list of bullets - the bottom half of the article is not totally about a different person - it seems to be about Mrs Marx traveling back to Kreuz's funeral and the timing of the funeral. Regardless - BEFORE doesn't show that all that much was written about this handmaiden in the household of the esteemed revolutionary socialist.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Changiing to userfy, per 24.151.116.12's comment, and looking at Konsumtion's contributions/article-creation notes - this seems like notes for a draft and not something ready to be mainspaced. I'm not convinced subject is notable from my BEFORE - but I might be missing something (variant spelling, references to her by private name, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Helene Demuth, where the sentence about her that I just added to the article lede is reliably sourced to a bio of Marx by Jonathan Sperber and can be usefully added to the Demuth article as per WP:PRESERVE. Mariannne was the younger sister of Marx's housekeeper Helene Demuth.; Marianne worked as a housemaid for the Marx family for several years. Keeping is useful in part because there has been ongoing interest in the fact that Karl Marx kept servants, and in part because so many rumours surround these servants and the question of whether Marx fathered a child by one of them - historians disagree. I did not find enough about her to support a separate article; if soneome does, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I suspect the author intended this as working notes for an article or articles, not unlike the similarly bullet-pointed User:Konsumtion/Gustav Schiermeyer and User:Konsumtion/Henry Julian Hunter. Userfying might be the best result. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Edmund Williams

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

Non-notable county politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. Also I'd consider this unsourced. The lone source is "Minutes, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders". For all we know its a made-up source, even if its not available online, the least they could have done was provide a date. Rusf10 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find much in my BEFORE beyond a genealogy and list-style coverage. There is a more notable fella with the same name ([7]) who lived in the same period who is not this guy. And there are a few mores - filtering down to name + Shrewsbury/Monmouth did not lead to much.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors.Djflem (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors. While I am able to find online mention of Minutes of New Jersey County Board of Freeholders at a later date (1850) Inventory of the county archives of New Jersey, Issue 15 ("Minutes of Board of Chosen Freeholders, May 10, 1850 (hereinafter cited as Freeholders' Minutes)"), I am unable to verify that Edmund Williams is mentioned in the Monmouth County's minutes at an earlier date in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least a date. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is not strong enough to make him a special case under NPOL #2 — that requires significant reliable source press coverage, not just verification of his existence in the county freeholder board's own primary source minutes of its own meetings. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Even if we had an accurate and complete source, we would still have the problem that it is a primary not a secondary source. What we need to justify this article is secondary source coverage from reliable source that is completely lacking. Not every head of the governing board of every county in the United States is notable. I just shudder at where that would take us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip Joseph (politician)

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

For the record I created this article, however that was over 10 years ago. Back then I did not understand the need in Wikipedia to include references, and both my understanding and consensus on notability for politicians has changed since then. The current guidelines say that unelected candidates are rarely notable. In the decade the only sourcing shown is in coverage of one of his opponents. Not all candidates for the US house are notable, and Joseph does not seem to overcome this truism. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Foner 1993 and Suggs 1983 both have in-depth entries about him which allow for the article to be NOR, NPOV, and V. Many other sources provide more details. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So John Pack Lambert is saying that this reasonably relevant African-American civil rights activist from the 1800's should be deleted because "unelected candidates are rarely notable" despite having made the effort to write the article and it having stood for 10 years? I am suprised, but considering the diffrence between how the article looked when submitted to AfD and the current version I think it's pretty obvious that Smmurphy deserves some credit here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. 19th century African-American history is my specialty on wikipedia, so while I would prefer the article not to have been submitted to AfD, I don't have an opinion on whether Johnpacklambert should have been able to find the sources and improve the article himself and was happy to make a contribution last night (which I was too tired to properly copy-edit, for what its worth). Smmurphy(Talk) 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smmurphy's improvements and sourcing. Seems he did quite a bit more, that was covered, than just failing in his election bid. I commend JPL's integrity in nomming an article he himself created, which I agree did not establish notability (in text and in sourcing) prior to Smmurphy's improvements.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) missing not fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per splendid WP:HEYMANN by User:Smmurphy, obviating all concerns expressed by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it's true that we don't keep unelected candidates just because they were candidates per se, an unelected candidate can sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons that would get them kept under other inclusion criteria besides NPOL itself — and Smmurphy has done a very creditable job of substancing and sourcing this into a much stronger and more keepable article than it was even at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per fine additions satisfying WP:BASIC. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdraw The article clearly establishes notability. It did not at the time I nominated it, and the fact that so few sources had been identified in the decade plus of the article existing made it seem unlikely it would be. I have to object to the misuse of the english languge in the above discussion. "themself" is not a word, it clearly should be "himself" and I take offense at the abuse of the language in such a wrong-headed way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no offense was meant. I've switched the pronown. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The next step is to create an article on Jack Turner (politician) who as the subject of a scholarly publication would seem to be clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@John Pack Lambert I agree, so I started it. It seems there is a fair amount of material. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nordic countries in World War II

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

Following an extensive debate on the talk page, I argue the category "Nordic countries" is not sufficiently notable to justify an article on WWII. The WP convention is to approach the wartime history by country - and this is a logical category to use. Otherwise, there is a danger of multiple content forks emerging (i.e. Balkans, Low Countries, Baltic States in WWII) besides the basic national articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pings to users involved in the discussion: @Erik den yngre:, @Rjensen:, @Manxruler:.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the military history of the region esp re WW2 has been the subject of several scholarly and popular books in English (and many more in the Scandinavian languages)--eg: 1) Bohme, Klaus-Richard. he Defense Policies of the Nordic Countries, 1918-1939 (1979); 2) Elting, John R. Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life Books 1981); 3) Haarr, Geirr. The Gathering Storm: Naval War in Northern Europe, September 1939 to April 1940 (US Naval Institute Press, 2013); 4) a scholarly article: Krosby, H. Peter. "The United States and the Nordic Countries, 1940-1945." Revue Internationale d'Histoire Militaire Ancienne (1982), Issue 53, pp 125-148; 5) Miller, James. The North Atlantic Front: Orkney, Shetland, Faroe and Iceland at War (2004); 6) Nissen, Henrik S. ed. Scandinavia during the Second World War (Nordic Series, number 9.) (University of Minnesota Press and Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. 1983)--published 25 years ago with scholars from six countries; 7) a scholarly survey: Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler and Daniel M. DuBois : vol 1 pp 208–21.-- plus the Nordic theatre gets well covered in overall surveys of WW2: 8) World War II: A Short History (Routledge 2015) by Michael J. Lyons = one full chapter (#6) out of 26 chapters. 9) half of chapter 3 in Max Hastings Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (2011); 10) all of ch 4 in World War II: A Compact History (1969, reprint 2017) by R. Ernest Dupuy. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • 3) Haarr's book deals with Norway and the North Sea, not with Finland. 5) Miller's book deals with the islands in the North Atlantic plus Norway, not with Finland or Sweden. — Erik Jr. 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The opening sentence now reads: "Given their strategic locations regarding Britain and Russia, the Nordic countries in World War II were the targets of German conquest or control, along with the nearby islands, while the British tried to stop them." This sets the stage for the article and assumes that the scope is logical and notable. But it is not at all clear if this statement is true. Soviet union tried to conquer Finland, not Hitler. Finland approached Germany for military support and joined Germany against Soviet union. Denmark was swiftly occupied, but Britain did not try to stop the german army, and Denmark was primarily a stepping stone to Norway. Germany did not try to occupy Iceland. Germany did not even occupy Svalbard. There were certainly spillovers between these countries, for instance Norwegian refugees and "police forces" in Sweden, refugees from Finland to Sweden during the Lapland war, German retreat from Lapland through Finnmark, a Norwegian squadron in Iceland etc. But there is no coherent, shared story there to justify a separate article. --— Erik Jr. 15:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Erik claims "there is no coherent, shared story." hed provides no RS to support his claim. That is not accepted by historians of the war who treat them together (see Lyons, Hastings, Dupuy) and by the governments themselves, of whom historian Nissen states: The governments of the four countries....have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture. They did so before the war; they did so during the war in so far as it was politically feasible; and they did so again after the war, when cooperation was institutionalized. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but it is the other way around. The article should present information from RS that justifies the article (beyond the obvious that they have shared borders and therefore some spillover is expected). I would add that presenting a general claim (such as "have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture") is not enough, the article should present specific information to support the claim ("show, don't tell"). This issue we pointed out in 2015 and the information is still missing. More importantly, the story that is still missing need to be a stronge one to justify departure from WP convention to tell WW2 history country by country. There are many regions or group of countries that are more natural or logical in the context of WW2, for instance Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Baltics, or Eastern Central Europe. --— Erik Jr. 00:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the main reason for the nomination. The "Nordic countries" is a geographic and political concept, but not sufficiently notable in the context of WW2. There are no strong reasons to depart from the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country: These countries do not have a shared history during WW2 except for Denmark and Norway that is already covered in Operation Weserübung.--— Erik Jr. 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is AFD, not RFC or RM, so let's follow WP:AFDFORMAT. I have for clarity and per WP:TPO struck "Support as nom", changed one "Oppose" to "Keep", and changed "Support delete" to "Delete". Sam Sailor 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Userfy - The topic, as a topic, of the Nordic or Scandinavian theater in WWII is notable (per sources presented above, and readily available in BEFORE - [8][9][10][11][12] - and is probably a better grouping than a per-country basis as the actions of the various countries up north was not detached. However, the article quality here is lower than the per-country articles at the moment - hence the userfy !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't agree that the Nordic countries is a better grouping. As mentioned previously the history of the Nordic countries during WW2 is very different. Look at the opening statement ("Nordic" removed) that sets the stage for the article: ".... were the targets of German or Russia conquest or control...." This is true for all European countries, including Britain, and Poland in particular. It is true that the "the actions of the various countries up north was not detached", but it is also the case for virtually European countries in WW2. For instance: Allied troops were pulled out of Narvik because of German advance in France. Except for Weserübung developments in these countries were not particularly related. If you look closely at the early stages of the war most countries on the continent were more related, for instance German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia was related to the invasion of Poland, the German invasion of Belgium was related to the invasion of France. Life during the war was also quite different. During the final stages of the war, for instance the liberation of Bohemia was related to allied victory in Berlin, the liberation of Denmark was part of the German capitulation in NW Germany etc. So the point is that each Nordic country is a different story, in particular Finland with its unique story. Grouping the Nordics is much more artificial than similar groupings of countries on the continent. — Erik Jr. 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to add: Scandinavia and the Nordics are not the same. If we take Iceland and Finland out of the equation (and Orkeneys of course), the scope of the article makes more sense. — Erik Jr. 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Icewhiz' indicate "not detached" as a criteria for grouping, this is a weak criteria as already mentioned as most European countries were related. And it is not clear what "actions of the various countries" means. Iceland (then part of Denmark) and Denmark did not do anything, they were very passive, so it is not clear how their actions should be judged. — Erik Jr. 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree that a per country history is the best way to organize. It actually isn't the way most historians work (unless in a vary national setting). Countries themselves shift quite a bit - what was once independent gets subjugated or merged or split. Treating the Baltics, for instance, as we do in German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II is quite straightforward. The Baltics in WWII all faces the same fate and really had little variation between themselves (as temporary Buffer states between WWI and WWII - modern sensibilities for post-Soviet independence aside - frankly most history text prior to 1990 made little separation between them). Treating the Nordics as a group is not a "bad thing" - and it is done externally to Wikipedia. In terms of Wikipedia policy - if this is treated as a topic by scholars, so can we.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Loads of info on WP is organized by country, and I agree that in many cases that is not the best way. But on WP we do both things, for instance we have articles on identifiable battles and operations (such as Weserübung that covers more than one country), and we have articles for countries during wars for instance Norway in World War II, the same information is found in separate articles. In the case of the Nordics, country is clearly be basic level of analysis because all countries were basically intact as sovereign states and public administration continued operation within existing borders even under occupation. Even if Sweden cooperated with Germany (transfer of troops for instance), the German occupants respected Swedish sovereignty (so 2 meters across the border Norwegians were basically safe). Germany treated Norway as one country in military and civilan affairs (for instanceReichskommissariat Norwegen), same for Denmark. So, given that individual Nordic countries stand out as the natural unit, there must be strong reasons to add yet another level. Events or plans that included more than one country are already covered in articles on Weserübung, Plan R 4, Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive etc., and it is not clear what is the value added of repeating information from these articles. --— Erik Jr. 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Is it a bad thing to treat the Nordics as a group in relation to WW2? Yes, perhaps. When we create an article about X on WP we also say that "X is something", so this article may give the impression WW2 in the Nordic area was one thing, but quite the opposite is true. So we should be careful not to impose a perspective on the material, for instance the phrase "Attention turned to the Nordic theater." was added to the article without reference. On the talkpage I have already commented on the sources cited as evidence. For instance Stenius etal (Stenius, H., Österberg, M. and Östling, J., eds. Nordic Narratives of the Second World War) is a collection of essays about WW2 seen from each of the Nordic countries, it is not about the Nordic countries as one Theatre of War. --— Erik Jr. 19:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War edited by Takala (also published in Norwegian, 1987), is also collection of research papers from each of the Nordic (except Iceland). This is also typical for much of the literature: The heading is "Nordic ...." or "Scandinavia ....", but the content is about individual countries. --— Erik Jr. 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • comment It is NOT true that the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country. We have Latin America during World War II, Pacific War [[European Theatre of World War II and [[Middle East Theatre of World War II The Nordic region was explicitly treated as a unit by the British and the French, as the article explains regarding the planned Norway invasion in 1940. Furthermore the RS state and are quoted saying that the Nordic countries considered themselves a common unit before, during and after the war. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The Second World War was, by definition, global in scope. It is conventional to divide it into regions or theatres such as the Mediterranean or Eastern Front and these typically involve several countries. The basis of the nomination is therefore false. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred by our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, this is what we are discussing: Was the Nordic one theatre of war? — Erik Jr. 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • As a minimum I think this article should temporarily be taken out of the mainspace, until most content issues are resolved. — Erik Jr. 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Is there a Nordic region? Did it matter as a region in WW2? Erik has based his argument on a false premise--that Wikipedia has a secret policy against regional articles re WW2. His claim is refuted by major Wiki articles such as Latin America during World War II and Pacific War and European Theatre of World War II and Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. All historians of the war cover the Norway campaign of 1940 --often giving it a whole chapter. Rightly so because the military planners in Britain and France as well as their political leaders such as Churchill and Reynaud treated the region as a whole, and had a coordinated action that involved simultaneous warfare involving Finland, Norway, Sweden and USSR (and also two Danish possessions) all in order to win an economic war that would ruin the Germany economy. They had a region-wide perspective -- as historians have recognized. Butler in Grand Strategy says he deals with "Allied operations in Scandinavia" (p 92) -- Erik assumes the Allied planners of WW2 had separate plans for each country. No they had integrated plans for the entire region simultaneously. As did Germany at the same time and the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway together on the same day not separately, while fighting off the British navy. Furthermore Berlin made diplomatic deals with USSR, Finland and Sweden to support their control of Scandinavia. The Allied and German plans can not be handled country by country the way Erik demands because the war planners thought in terms of controlling the Nordic region not in separate plans for each separate nation. It's the same with the European Theatre of World War II when Allied and German planners envisioned the region as a whole rather than a discrete set of separate units. It's well known how German delays in helping Italy in the Balkans in early 1941 delayed its invasion of Russia. Regions matter more than national boundaries in winning a world war. Indeed, Germany and USSR abolished Baltics/Poland/Czechoslovakia as independent countries, created brand new countries, and redrew national boundaries to suit their larger war plans. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Rjensen: Please stop the mindereading, stop making assumptions about what I think and assume. Focus on facts and issues, please, this discussion is not about me. — Erik Jr. 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let us take a step back and forget the details for a moment. I think the key question is: What is the value added of having one more (intermediate) geographical level of analysis? If this level of analysis did not function as a unit, the additional level of analysis will merely be an aggregation of information from articles about countries. So the question if or to what degree were the Nordics a unit during WW2. The answer I would say is a «no» with regard to actual events (as been demonstranted clearly in the discussion above), except perhaps in allied, Soviet and German plans. The Nordics did not act as a unit, they were not invaded as one, they were not liberated as one etc., and the countries/sovereign states remained intact. So the shared history for the whole region exists at best only as plans made by the major powers. The danger of having a separate article is giving the impression that the region was quite unified when it is was not. So the reason for such an article that remains is a way to organize information. The key question: Is it useful to organize or aggregate information at one more level? Perhaps, but I am not convinced: Overviews are found in several articles already with links to articles with details. So the article is redundant and we risk fragmenting content. --— Erik Jr. 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • it's a puzzling comment about "giving an impression" Wikipedia's job is to tell what happened and that is done here, no matter what prior impressions people had. The Allies and the Germans both made plans for the region- and they ACTED on the region in accord with their plans--which were all based on Nordic region as a unit. The Allies failed militarily in 1940 and the Germans won, and that victory shaped the entire war years. The Nordics in fact acted as a unit before the war in setting up a neutrality front--they were quite unified. The ww2 experience gave them a strong shared memory that still persists. They did not go separate ways before, during or after the war, according to Nissen. Furthermore historians writing the overall history of WW2 typically them as a unit. I wonder if Erik admits that has abandoned his original claim that Wikipedia has a policy against regional articles in ww2. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: A quick search on Google Books verges clearly onto the side that there is notability in considering the Nordics/Scandinavia as a separate geographical/regional unit during WW2. For example, "Hitler's Scandinavian Legacy" (2013), "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" (2011), "Scandinavia and the Great Powers 1890-1940" (2002), "The Nordic Countries in the Early Cold War, 1944-51" (2011) and "Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War" (1989). It doesn't really matter what wikipedians think is artificial or if the countries had totally different experiences during the war; instead notability is conveyed from what RS discuss about. Manelolo (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Likewise: "The experiences of the First World War, in which the High Seas Fleet had been condemned to inactivity in the dead North Sea, led to early ideas of securing the Nordic region for the battle against British supply lines." (German S-Boats in Action in the Second World War, 2007); "The five Nordic countries emerged from World War II in widely differing ..." (The Nordic balance since the war, 2008); "World War II and its aftermath was of course the event that shaped Nordic Cold War security policy." (Nordic Defense in the Post Cold War Era, 1995); "THE Nordic area has often seemed to be the quiet corner of Europe. This perception harks back to the era between the Napoleonic War and World War II, when Europe was the cockpit of the world and Central Europe and the Balkans provided the military and diplomatic battlegrounds for the great powers — with the Nordic states only rarely being involved, let alone being of importance." (The Nordic region, changing perspectives in international relations, 1990)
    I mean, at this stage it is starting to be quite irrefutable that Nordic/Scandinavia is a notable entity by itself in World War II talk. Manelolo (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It is clearly a distinct theatre of conflict, passes notability, and is relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Himmelstürmer Flightpack

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

Unreliable cited sources (basically just a post on dieselpunks.org[1] and one on disciplesofflight.com,[2] neither citing their own sources), and other more reliable/detailed sources indicating this is a hoax.[3][4] As the Talk page shows, When someone asked for validation last year, the author pointed to a German title which turned out to be a children's picture book Rovack (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at least one of the references on that page is actually a book about German films in the 20th century.[5][6] This, along with notes on the Talk page, point to confusion on the part of the author, between the supposed "Himmelstürmer Flightpack", and the real-life documentary "Himmelstürmer", described in the German Wikipedia page of the same name. Note that the Himmelsstürmer disambiguation page makes not a single mention of any flightpack. The cause of this confusion appears to be the author's inability to read German, leading them to believe any mention of the word "Himmelstürmer" is a relevant reference, even if it's in a movie anthology. --Rovack (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • rewrite as hoax This hoax has been around for a long time and is unlikely to stop just because WP finally sees sense and stops claiming that it's true. However there is still useful mileage in debunking it.
Alternatively, redirect to Colin Furze. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite as hoax. This is a hoax. The question is if there are enough sources treating it as a hoax. I did find this - How A Holocaust Denier Fooled The Internet With Nazi Jetpack Soldiers.Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/the-himmelstuermer-flightpack
  2. ^ https://disciplesofflight.com/pulse-jet-past-future/
  3. ^ https://jalopnik.com/how-a-holocaust-denier-fooled-the-internet-with-nazi-je-482770651
  4. ^ https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-himmelstuermer-did-it-exist.317216/
  5. ^ Bernhard Chiari, Matthias Rogg, Wolfgang Schmidt (Hrsg) "Krieg und Militär im Film des 20". Jahrhunderts, Oldenbourg Verlag 2003, Seite 403
  6. ^ https://www.amazon.de/Krieg-Milit%C3%A4r-Jahrhunderts-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichtlichen-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichte/dp/3486567160
  • Delete or rewrite as hoax. I think we would be performing a service by rewriting this as a hoax but I fear we lack significant coverage as a hoax. The only other reliable source I could find was the book by the same author as the article found by Icewhiz. [13]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, as cited in the original comment, the only 2 sources I could find were that article Icewhiz mentioned, and this forum thread discussing the issue. Of course that forum isn't a terribly authoritative source either, though the picture of the plastic model used to fabricate the historical-looking picture, if nothing else, does look pretty relevant. --Rovack (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite as hoaxI'm the original author. The page was initially put up for AFD, but then it was withdrawn. As has been noted, I had asked for help with a German speaking wikipedian. One reviewed the page, only removing *one* source... and since then the page had remained as is. Happy for it to be deleted, as references seem to be pointing it that way... it is probably best as has been suggested, for the benefit of the wikipedia users, that we convert this into a hoax article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hoax - Ouch, the jalopnik.com site above actually refers to us.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete -- does not appear to be a particularly notable hoax; if someone wants to create an article down the road, that's fine but I don't see anyone rewriting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Empire Airlines Flight 8284

Empire Airlines Flight 8284 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Empire Airlines Flight 8284" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unremarkable aviation incident, no deathe and minor injuries to the crew. And nothing interesting about the cause, either TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, nobody killed, it didnt hit anything important and nothing changed in the industry. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:AIRCRASH as this was a hull loss for the feeder airline of a major cargo airline. Agree it's not the most notable accident in aviation history. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Want to clarify my comment above: it's still notable. News articles: [14] [15] [16] Followup local broadcast news article that's 1) on YouTube 2) was on for an early three-minute block in the broadcast: [17] Secondary sources (official and blogs): [18] [19] SportingFlyer (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS. AIRCRASH is only an essay and not policy, but would probably fail it anyway. Non-notable accident with no notable consequences / effects.--Petebutt (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - this was a hull loss accident. I reject the argument that accidents involving cargo aircraft are less notable than accidents involving aircraft that carry passengers. As long as the aircraft involved is of a size that meets our agreed criteria, then it should not matter what it was carrying. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Question for Mjroots. Is the agreed criteria you refer to a gross weight of more than 12,500 lb?
I believe that accidents involving freifght aircraft are much more common than those involving self-loading cargo. Which would mave them less notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the passenger carrying capacity of a non-cargo version of that type of aircraft. However, the aircraft type in question also exceeds the weight you quoted. Either way, we have a large enough aircraft that a hull loss means it should be capable of passing WP:GNG via WP:V x WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Got it, thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:AIRCRASH states that an accident is notable if The accident was fatal to humans or the accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. That accident did involve a hull loss of more than 12,500 lb, which make it notable enough to pass it and WP:GNG. L293D () 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment Want to make one more comment: several delete votes here claim it's not notable without providing any reasons as to why it's not. I concede commercial plane crashes without fatalities have a little more work to do than plane crashes with fatalities to get over the WP:GNG line, but I don't see any good policy arguments for its deletion other than the fact it's "not notable." Since it's a hull loss as per WP:AIRCRASH (just an essay), and since significant coverage otherwise existed (including local news follow-up stories, citing the accident in sites which contain a database of notable CVR logs here [20], and ongoing third-party non-news coverage as to the result of the incident [21] ) both WP:GNG (per ongoing coverage) and WP:AIRCRASH are clearly satisfied. The NTSB also made safety changes as a result of the accident: [22] I'd like to qualify my "not the most notable accident in aviation history" comment above as it could easily fly under the radar as a hull-loss feeder cargo accident without deaths get less news than a passenger accident without a hull loss or even any injuries, but this was a major accident nevertheless. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails GNG. The thing to remember about WP:AIRCRASH is that it is an essay, and it is more geared for passenger vs. military crashes - transport flights fall in between, and the ATR 42 while not a small aircraft is not a particularly large one (seating 40-52 passengers when configured as such). This particular crash while resulting in a hull writeoff, did not fully destroy the hull. No fatalities. No change to regulations. It was covered in news in 2009 [23][24], but not later. There are some google books ([25] where the NTSB report summary is in an appendix, and [26] where the NTSB report summary is in a page) and a few scholar hits (none of which are cited by more than 10. A mixture of passing mentions and NTSB report spinoffs - e.g. [27] which is about simulation modeling). And we have, as usual, the NTSB report. The level of coverage here is lower than that present in many military crashes which we would delete - and does not pass SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment There were follow-up articles from 2011 when the NTSB report was released; [28]. I don't understand what you mean by "did not fully destroy the hull," as the hull was definitely lost/written off. Whether a hull is completely destroyed has no bearing on WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The hull was written off - it was not destroyed - in terms of WP:AIRCRASH (as essay, we should remember, not policy) - this is a writeoff of a small to medium transport flight - which is really on the edge of the essay. Reporting on the NTSB report are fairly routine. Basically this thing got coverage the week it happened (and not all that wide), some coverage later when the NTSB released a report, the NTSB report itself (not grounds for notability - the NTSB investigates anything), and minute subsequent mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: That the hull was destroyed or written off is basically the same thing: the plane never flew again. L293D () 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between deciding not to repair an aircraft (for instance in order to file an insurance claim and/or sell the parts for spares/scrap) and a catastrophic hull loss which is not repairable. The former is a matter of judgement at the time of the accident (which can be affected by a multitude of conditions - including the financial circumstances of the company, market conditions, and age/value of the aircraft) and the latter is absolute (as fixing what remains when you have a hole in the ground is impossible).Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
To illustrate - the write off decision may have been different (and definitely a closer call) had this been a 2 year old plane and not a 19 year old plane (aircraft are typically depreciated at 5%-10% per annum. 19 years is at the edge of service life for some models). Jan 2009 was the height of the financial crisis. These are all variables unrelated to the crash, but a writeoff decision for a fairly old aircraft in an accident is different from a newish aircraft.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate this line of reasoning. We don't have an article for UPS 5X61, which "crashed" when the nose gear failed during takeoff and the aircraft was written off. Even though it was a write-off that probably had a lot to do with the fact it was an MD-11 in 2016... But also note the difference in the aviation-safety database articles: [29] versus [30]. The UPS flight was "substantially" damaged; the ATR-42 in this instance caught fire and was "destroyed." The entire right side of the plane caught fire (the photo isn't in the wikipedia article.) That's the distinction I make between these two types of hull losses. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

* Delete (unless) – The NTSB's recommendations are not binding. Unless the ATR-42's stick-pusher logics was actually modified as a result of this incident (and I could not find any source confirming that after a quick search), then the event remains a non-notable incident caused mainly by poor airmanship, like countless others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK it does not appear that it was by the FAA, but the EASA did take it up and looked into the Saab 340 as a result of this crash. Simulator practices of icing conditions were also changed, and some recommendations remain open. Source: [31] SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:EVENT. There are lookback stories in local media and significant analytical coverage in academic papers [32][33][34] BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – I've changed my vote to Keep after considering the number of references to the event in apparently reliable academic papers. People researching those papers would reasonably expect to find some coverage of this accident on Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – I find the rationale, "nothing interesting about the cause" to personally be insufficient as a primary reason for deleting an article. It has a reasonable number of references and has been noted in a variety of academic papers (see above). --HunterM267 talk 17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. As for the hull loss, the entry mentioning the incident in the parent company's article is more than enough.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Billhpike. Lookback articles are a clear indicator that it meets longevity requirements for coverage as an event. Acebulf (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Islander's Castle

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

No significant coverage found WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Islander already mentioned in Dinagat Islands - no point to merge. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dinagat Islands: No need for separate article, but it's a plausible search term which does not seem to refer to anything of greater or equal notability, and redirects are cheap. PWilkinson (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is also known as Governor Glenda Ecleo's Castle and as the "White Castle", e.g. here at https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/28546-family-feud-and-political-sisterhood-in-dinagat. So try also:
(Find sources: "Ecleo Castle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference) but remove the quotemarks so doesn't search for exact phrase, and add "Dinagat" separately
(Find sources: "White Castle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference) but add "Dinagat" outside the quote marks around "White Castle".
It appears to be very prominent while approaching the island by boat, is mentioned in numerous travel guidebooks online. It appears to me to be a significant landmark in the Philippines and probably has historic significance comparable/greater than that of majority of U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed sites. --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It does appear to be a prominent current landmark but it looks like recent construction in the photographs and I am not finding anything suggesting historic significance or indicating when it was constructed. Still might be notable as recent construction. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The castle is a symbol of wealth and power concentration in the Ecleo family in the Dinagat Islands. Article on that topic includes photo captioned "Snapshot of economic inequality—the Ecleo family’s “White Castle” in the background; and a fishing village in San Jose Municipality in the foreground.", page 20 in Google Scholar-found academic working paper "Political Dynasties and Mining: A Toxic Mix?", Luz, Juan Miguel and Mendoza, Ronald U. and Siriban, Charles, Political Dynasties and Mining: A Toxic Mix? (August 6, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2640578 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2640578 . --Doncram (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep As others have noted, the building is a prominent local landmark. Constructed in 2007, it's cost and contrast with the poverty of the surrounding community has been noted in multiple reliable sources per Doncram above and this reference I just added: Dinagat: The hands that heal hold power. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rename to Glenda Ecleo. As a member of a national legislature, Eclwo has a seat in the House of Representatives, she passes notability. The information on this page would be a useful section on her bio page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

*COMMENT - The editor who voted to keep or redirect - do keep in mind comment such as "symbol of wealth and power concentration in the Ecleo family" , "appear to be a prominent current landmark", "prominent local landmark. Constructed in 2007, it's cost and contrast with the poverty of the surrounding community" is NOT equal to a merit of a page in nobility guidelines in Wikipedia. The above are sentiment perspectives but not constitute a reliable independent source WP:RS for they fail WP:GNS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOFEAT. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:37, 22 February 2018 (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=827374270"
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