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

Urgent publishing

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks — trying to build the page, so examples, sources, citations, and additional language have been added. Will continue to add. Daysof1971 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional references have been added to the article which need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. essay/ neologism. No consistent use in sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Stefan Dollinger

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

Related discussions on Herbert Schendl and Herbert Koziol. This is a BLP of a non-notable academic, which fails WP:PROF, and is written by a user who has an obvious conflict of interest. See discussion here. Sources are poor primary references. Polyamorph (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. See this strange edit by an IP claiming the author of the page was Stefan Dollinger himself [1]. Polyamorph (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF, way too soon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. I don't think his work on the DCHP is sufficient in itself to confer notability on him . I'm not seeing the multiple independent secondary sources about Dollinger required to show notability. Meters (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on search results from Web of Science he seems like a fine academic, but nothing sufficiently out of the ordinary to satisfy NBIO. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nikolaus Ritt

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

As for other entries here for Stefan Dollinger, Herbert Schendl, Herbert Koziol, I'm proposing this other non-notable vanity academic page with primary sources written by a user with a clear conflict of interest. These articles should be considered collectively. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete. At least based on English-language sources, I'm not finding sufficient material to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. There may be material in other languages, but his field English Historical Linguistics. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Schendl

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

BLP written with clear conflict of interest, over positive, sources are mostly primary (own webpage, CV, symposium webpage, university course information!) Non-notable academic. Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep per WP:PROF#6 "held a highest-level... post at a major academic institution". According to the University of Vienna, he was Chair of the department of English and American Studies, and the Fakultätsvorsitzender of the Humanities faculty. Also, this review of Code-Switching in Early English calls Schendel and co-author Laura Wright "without doubt among the foremost researchers in the field". The article needs improvement in terms of sourcing and tone, but AfD is not for cleanup. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Walking on water

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

Almost entirely un-encyclopedic and a criticism of religion that has nothing to do with the article. Almost everything here is already adequately covered in other articles; lacks focus; generally poor writing style. Deletion has been requested in talk page. Chimneyrock (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Delete - multiple grounds: not encyclopedic, functionally an unwarranted attack, duplicative, some iffy sources (though some interesting ones too - just again, found elsewhere for similar purposes, so it probably does meet WP:GNG). It definitely fails WP:NPOV Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Walk on Water (and possibly move that DAB page to this location). A disaster of an article with no clear topic, it discusses both Animal locomotion on the water surface and Jesus walking on water. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nesr

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

From what I can tell, nesr actually means some bird that may be either eagles or vultures. The claim that it is the name of a deity inevitably traces back to questionable 19th century sources; I can't find anything more recent to corroborate that, and I don't think we need a dictionary definition of one ancient word. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What I can find from books and scholarly source available online confirms what the nominator said. I think this will need someone who can read Arabic to find some sources if it is to be kept, but, unfortunately, there seems to be few of those editing the English Wikipedia - much fewer than some lesser-spoken languages such as Polish or Japanese. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Koziol

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

Related to Herbert Schendl. See discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herbert_Schendl,_Herbert_Koziol_et_al.. no indication of notability and author has obvious conflict of interest. Polyamorph (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PROF #1, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as demonstrated by sources, and PROF #5 "held a named chair appointment". The Festschrift currently cited shows some significant impact. Moreover, Otto Jespersen includes a section on Koziol and his Handbuch der englischen Wortbildunglehre in Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. I would guess more sources may be available in German. Also, I'm not certain whether the Austrian Academy of Sciences is selective in the way that The Royal Society is, but if so he also satisfies PROF #3. I assume, based on the current content of the article, that COI issues are surmountable. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – as stated in the notability guidelines Academics/professors WP:NACADEMIC meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. And as Cnilep pointed out above Prof. Koziol definitively meets #1 - 3 and 5. ShoesssS Talk 15:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Translatathon

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. This could perhaps find a home outside of mainspace somewhere. Pontificalibus 06:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Szzuk (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the word might be newish, but mass translation marathonlike events aren't. This seems expandable and notable. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pagini Romanesti

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

The sourcing here just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Here's what we have:

  • An article from the newspaper itself (not independent)
  • A Google result (a search is not a source)
  • The newspaper's YouTube page (come on)
  • An interview with the newspaper's founder - that doesn't even mention this newspaper (!)
  • A biography of the founder, again not about the newspaper
  • Some random festival announcement
  • Some cruft
  • Some kind of interview on a PR website
  • An interview with the ex-president of Romania
  • An open letter that this newspaper's editor happened to sign
  • A blurb about a new bookstore, the only connection to the newspaper being that its founder is also behind the store

As I think is now clear, coverage of Pagini Românești is slight indeed, and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is basically non-existent. For that reason, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


It's funny that an article about a newspaper that is quoted quite often in Wikipedia is not meant to have a page. IQ Ads does not publish paid articles. Or at least, what I saw was not the case with the example quoted. There are articles with far fewer quoted sources (see Evenimentul zilei). The newspaper in question is published from 2001, it is not something new and it is important for Romanian community in Canada. I cleaned the references again. I would prefer constructive suggestions, especially because I want to make pages for the rest of the Romanian publications in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgraur (talkcontribs) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Even if "IQ Ads" were a completely legitimate source (it isn't), the only fact attested by that article is that one Viorel Anghel is editor of this paper. Given that every newspaper on earth has an editor (some of whom are notable individuals in their own right), this doesn't really get us to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete No mention of Pagini Romanesti in scholarly sources or mainstream media despite 15 years since it's foundation. My Lord (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@biruitorul: Wrong. The article is not about the editor, is about the newspaper. The title is "24 pages of Romanian Pages published twice a month at Montreal". You need to explain why a IQ ADS, a publication for the media and advertising industry in Romania, is not a source. Otherwise is only an opinion, not a fact. Mainstream media? Google is your friend: https://www.realitatea.net/un-samurai-in-romania-cine-este-kohei-oishi_2141042.html or http://evz.ro/oishi-maestru-samurai-romania.html or http://www.gsp.ro/sporturi/gimnastica/montreal-in-alb-si-negru-s-a-intors-in-trecut-nadia-de-acum-55-de-ani-a-privit-spre-nadia-de-atunci-14-ani-522797.html or http://www.prosport.ro/alte-sporturi/un-cunoscut-antrenor-japonez-va-coordona-loturile-olimpice-de-judo-ale-romaniei-17077662 or http://adevarul.ro/news/sport/interviu-kohei-oish-sportul-arata-mai-caracterul-unui-popor-1_5ab3e006df52022f75e52060/index.html Public person: https://mihailneamtu.org/2016/04/01/o-minoritate-curajoasa-poate-salva-civilizatia-occidentala/ And only in the last month. But I don't think that is important. I'm Romanian and I live in Montreal from years. I have a pretty good idea about the Romanian community in Quebec and Canada. Google News thinks the newspaper is important and is indexed. I can't find another community newspaper indexed by Google News. A lot of editors from Wikipedia (English, French and Romanian language) are thinking the same and you can find the newspaper indicated like sources. Sure,this newspaper is not NY Times or Washington Post but I thing is good enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. If you fell is not, please delete. Is not worthy to lose our time disputing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgraur (talkcontribs) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

    • One blog post by a marginal politician and one interview with a Japanese judo coach that happened to be picked up by Romania's mainstream media do not constitute significant coverage of Pagini Românești newspaper. It's been weeks since this discussion began, and I think it's quite clear by now that no real indication of notability is going to emerge. - Biruitorul Talk 17:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Prodded articles


History

Removal of the Federal Government

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

A beautiful first article, but I think it is a clear failure of WP:No original research. I proposal a redirect to Federal government of the United States, leaving open the possibility of a selective merge from the history. If it is not worth a section there, or in some other related article, then it is definitely not worth its own page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Needs a rename to something like 1814 Reconstruction of Washington or something along those lines. Oppose redirect to Federal government of the United States. This is an essentially expanded article on Burning of Washington#Reconstruction (covering the possible removal as well). This is notable standalone. It is also possible to merge. It is not OR. The article was/is not clear (e.g. lede (just fixed a bit)) on the scope - which is the debate/outcome of what to do after the burning of Washington.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I get that. It’s all about 1814 and the decision to reconstruct in place. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect to Burning of Washington; this is such a bad title that a straight deletion would be reasonable as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - while definitely a poor name, the content is sufficient to remain. I wouldn't back either the suggested rename, redirect or a merging (I feel it has sufficient standalone notability). The section on destruction needs to be reduced (though a summary still would have worth). Some alternate name like "Considered Relocation of Federal Capital from Washington", or similar, could work. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since this looks like quite a few mooted alternate names might appear, can I create a combining list here (i.e. a duplicate of any suggested within individual comments/"votes")? Nosebagbear (talk)
  • 1814 Reconstruction of Washington
  • Considered Relocation of Federal Capital from Washington

Ralph de Warenne

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Subject has not received significant coverage. The article has a lot of references, but this is by way of WP:SYNTH, spinning a story out of family context and scant instances where the subject has been mentioned in passing when describing grants made by other family members, plus a convoluted discussion of the origin of a branch of the family that may or may not be his descendants. All that is really known about him is that he existed and he patronized Lewes priory, and that is not enough. There is nothing noteworthy about him and he has received no substantial coverage. All of this information about him already appears on De Warenne family, and there is no good reason to have a separate article on such an obscure person just because he was son and brother of notable people (WP:NOTINHERITED), and arguably ancestor of a junior branch of the family (WP:NOTGENEALOGY) that itself is not independently notable and is covered on a page about the whole family. This should be Merged/Redirected to De Warenne family, which already contains all of the relevant information as a result of implementation of a prior AfD.

Previous AfD closed as as merge, but was problematic because the selected target was a disambiguation page, William de Warenne. Following discussion, closing administrator indicated they would "not mind changing it to 'no consensus'," [2] but no change was ever made. A year later, after I tried to implement the spirit of the decision by merging to De Warenne family, an involved party (not the closing administrator) changed the close retroactively to "no consensus", [3] citing the never-implemented comment by the closing administrator. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do we really have to do this again? A historical figure does not have to do something noteworthy to be notable. There doesn't have to be a lot known for significant coverage to exist. Case in point, the rather undistinguished Ralph de Warenne has received significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources cited in the article, mainly because of his potential connection to the Whitchurch Warennes. There is no WP:SYNTH. The main secondary sources cited (Farrer 1923; Farrer & Clay 1949; Eyton 1859) are specifically about Ralph de Warenne and the article summarises what they say about him. The more tangential mentions in other secondary sources, and the few primary sources, are used appropriately, to clarify points of fact and make what is, as you say, an obscure and convoluted historical topic a little easier to parse.
Regarding the previous AfD, you have neglected to include a crucial diff, where I confirmed with MBisanz that we could proceed with "no consensus". I assume he forgot to update the AfD hatnote, which is what I rectified recently, but that is neither here nor there: the discussion did not result in a consensus and the closing admin agreed. It wasn't simply a technical obstacle; that so many participants in the last AfD proposed a merge with a disambiguation page with a completely different name is a sure sign that they didn't read the page properly, and is exactly why their !votes should have been given little to no weight in the close. Attempting a merge with an article that didn't even exist when the last AfD was closed therefore doesn't reflect the "spirit" of its consensus at all.
And to make another correction to the nomination: most of this information is also in De Warenne family because you copied it there a couple of weeks ago. I don't have a problem with that, but it's absurd to argue for deletion on the basis that the content is redundant to a merge you have just done yourself with no prior consensus. In any case, we can keep De Warenne family as a summary style parent article. The fact that there is some overlap doesn't mean that we have to delete Ralph de Warenne or any of the other independently notable members of the family. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we have to do this again. The previous AfD concluded he was not really notable - that you managed to lobby this into a 'no consensus' that you yourself implemented doesn't miraculously conjure out of the ether additional sources that actually give him significant coverage. I apparently did not make it clear enough if you think the nomination has anything to do with redundancy - it is about NOTABILITY and NOTGENEALOGY. I only mentioned that the information is on the family page to indicate that we are not going to be losing any worthwhile information about this obscure person were this article to become a redirect. Yes, we could keep both articles, but we shouldn't because this person has not received any coverage except in passing when discussion something else entirely, his father's and brother's grant and the fact that the first Warenne of Whitchurch had a father named Ranulph who may be this man or may not be this man. Even the 'significant coverage' you claim the sources addressing the latter give him, amounts to the fact that he existed, and he had a son William who confirmed a grant he made. That is passing reference, not significant coverage, not notability. Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect As the first nominator for deletion (god knows I didn't anticipate all this), I still believe that subject is not notable. None of the arguments I have seen since then establish his notability. However, I am perfectly happy to see a redirect to the family article. Suggest we put everything else aside and do it. Rogermx (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - My feeling with genealogy articles on nobles from a long time ago is that there are a lot of pages with low standards on the internet which talk about figures like this. There is enough material in reliable sources to write a decent article with decenst standards about this person, and I don't see it as unencyclopedic. Coverage is in multiple sources, and thus is not NPOV. Everything is cited, so it doesn't fail V. I disagree that there is OR: concerns about SYNTH seem like a stretch to me as the sources are discussing this individual and uncertainty surrounding him, and this article doesn't, in my opinion, go beyond the sources in any way. Multiple sources independent sources discuss the individual and discussions extend multiple paragraphs and pages in Farrer & Clay 1949, so there seems to be a weak case for GNG. Just in case there is any confusion, Joe and I contributed heavilly to the article, and Joe posted about this AfD to my talk page, although I would have seen it and !voted in any case. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the primary sources, based on the article, appear to be mostly trivial ones related to his relatives. There appears to be enough research about him in secondary sources to justify keeping the article, although if there's a case that the article is synthesis ("Antiquities of Shropshire" says Of Ralph little has been recorded except his name; if other sources are equally insubstantial I would be concerned), it might be reasonable to redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The concern raised by @Power~enwiki is exactly my reason for the nomination. Eyton says of him Of Ralph little has been recorded except his name. Clay says of him The details known about Ralph are are mainly confined to mentions made of him in his father's charters or as witness to charters issued by his brother the third earl. His name is invariably Radulfus, and never Ranulfus, a name which is usually quite distinct.(p. 37) Elsewhere Clay says he made donations with his brother, he witnessed donations of his brother, and he probably isn't the Whitchurch founder. Three sentences total (p. 10), one simply saying who he apparently isn't is not significant coverage. When the authors themselves treat him as obscure, why are we trying to turn him into a notable figure? (or is the argument that the act of these authors in calling him obscure imbues him with notability?) Agricolae (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (and I say this as the person who did the research/writing on his brother Reginald de Warenne). I just looked through everything I have looking for mentions of this person. There is one mention in my library of him - in Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants (p. 777) where his entry reads "de Warenne, Radulf II. Younger son of William II de Warenne and Isabel de Vermandois." and then it lists Clay Early Yorkshire Charters, Douglas Social Structure of Medieval East Anglia, and Dugdale for charter entries. No ODNB entry for him. Tellingly, Radulf is NOT mentioned in the various sources that discuss Reginald, his brother - which include all the biographies of the monarchs, various works on the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, a lot of clerical history and biography, Green's English Sheriffs to 1154, and Sanders' English Baronies. To be honest, I couldn't find any references to the William fitzRadulf who is theorized to be his son either - there isn't any listing for William in any of the sources I consulted either (and I probably have every source that would be expected to mention someone from this time period). There is a de Warenne, Willelm Filius Rainaldi mentioned in Keats-Rohan as the son of Reginald, but his entry is just "son of Rainald de Warenne of Wormegay". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ealdgyth. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Kuf-Linx

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

Article, referenced entirely to unreliable self-published sources with no evidence of any properly reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, about a band whose only discernible claim of notability is that they existed. Existing is not an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC, but nothing else stated or sourced about them here even tries to pass NMUSIC for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep plenty of coverage on Google Books including contemporary coverage and more recent coverage noting their role in establishing the record label they signed to, their song So Tough charting, their backup band making news, and more. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - No reliable, third-party, published sources provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you look for any? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you improve the article to reference the "plenty of coverage" such that notability is clear?--Rpclod (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - FloridaArmy is right, although they should provide a link or two of examples for clarity. For instance, entry in the Encyclopedia of Rhythm and Blues seems, in my opinion, to more than establish suitability in the encyclopedia.[4] Smmurphy(Talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Cuff-Links are actually a different band. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
[https://books.google.com/books?id=FKsSBREliAgC&pg=PA130&dq="The+Kuf-Linx"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH86Dt1MbaAhUH94MKHfM4CnsQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q="The%20Kuf-Linx"&f=false here's a source noting the Kuf-Linx vekrsion of So Tough charting. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess an alternative to deletion would be to redirect to The Champs - which formed when the musicians were invited to record as a backing band for this iteration of the Kuf-Linx.[5] Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The record label would probably be a better merge target. But my understanding is bands with songs that have charted are inherently notable. There's also quite a bit of coverage of this band on Google Books and elsewhere as noted above and seen whem the Google Books link above is utilized. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep According to sources in the article, So tough peaked at 76 on Billboard which satisfies WP:BAND #2 and there is independent RS coverage, some of which is now included in the article thanks to FloridaArmy. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not seeing any citation that demonstrates that the song was listed on the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA, either of which is required for BAND #2 criteria. One of the added Google links does not mention the subject or song at all and the other page does not indicate that the song charted.--Rpclod (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The cite I linked to above notes the song charted (as well as the song recorded by the band backing the group at the same session). I've seen it noted in other sources as well including a comparison of the rankings of the two song versions recorded by different groups at around the same time. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Just saying "charted" is insufficient. That can mean many things; it needs to be in either the Billboard Hot 100 or certified by the RIAA as gold or platinum to meet WP:BAND criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
NMUSIC's charting criterion is not passed just because a book generically says "the song charted", without specifying what chart it purportedly appeared on. For all that source actually tells us, the song could have merely have spent one week at #40 on one local radio station in one single market. To make a band notable for charting, you have to be able to cite a source which confirms a specific chart position on a specific IFPI-certified chart provider that's considered an acceptable chart by WP:Record charts — you can't get them over that criterion just by citing a source which says "it charted" without specifying where or when or what chart position it reached. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Charted on Billboard chart. See Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2006 Record Research, 2007 - Music - 1176 pages page 476. Noted in sources already cited. And clearly meets the notability music guidelines in several respects. I don't know what else to tell you. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The claim that they charted in Billboard is reflected only in the article's unacceptable sources (the unreliable fansites that don't count for guano). No reliable source present in the article says any such thing at all — the only Billboard citation given in the article is to an advertisement, not editorial content or an actual Billboard chart. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not realized that the existing cited link was not RS for this fact. This Billboard one should be better: "Top 100 Sides". Billboard. March 17, 1958. p. 31. Retrieved 2018-04-21.  24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Bingo! Tied at 76 on the Billboard 100 and I struck my delete !vote. Hopefully someone adds this reference with some discussion at the article page.--Rpclod (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ray Cowdery

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

Article was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Insufficient sources to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. Amazon is not a WP:RS. Authors' own works are not acceptable as notability sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to cite Wikipedia: Pillar no. 5: No firm rules — Spirit must matter more than strict adherence to the letter of the law. The Fifth Pillar even goes sofar as to link directly to the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
In my opinion, Wikipedia as a whole benefits more from keeping the article, than losing it. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Funny — when I engaged to the fundraising appeal banner, to make a donation yesterday, the page displayed this quote from Jimbo Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all knowledge."
Somehow doesn't sound like he cares more about criteria than about information to me ?? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR & significant RS coverage not found. The number of books is not material; they appear to be published with small-time publishers; I'm unable to find any reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wolfgang Römer

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and significant RS coverage not found: link, in either German or English. Article is largely sourced to primary documents. Bibliography includes a source from questionable publisher J.J. Fedorowicz. No de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Possible selective merge to 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion. Note there is an unrelated submarine officer with same name.[6]. I'm not as sure of the RSness of [7][8] (that K.e.coffman is calling out a questionable - hence I'm cagey on the merge) - however coverage of this individual seems to be quite limited (so - I do not see him passing GNG even if this were a RS). Whether to selectively merge some of this would depend on the RSness.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib

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

This reads very much like the user has created these facts. With some very iffy cites (Al-Majdi for example is a person, not a book). Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The mentioned matters have been tried to be retrieved/taken from sources ... Anyway, I edited the article to some extent to improve/modify it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Family tree of Ali (I would say to Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib but that already redirects to the family tree) - This should possibly be grouped with Jafar ibn Ali, which I think should also be so redirected. Both are sons of Umm ul-Banin and full brothers of Abbas ibn Ali and are most (only) notable for dying at the Battle of Karbala. Given the significance of their father, I'm tempted to !vote keep in-spite of NOTINHERITED. However, there really isn't much more known about these individuals. I do want to point out that some of the references are borderline ok, except that many are so old as to constitute primary sources. For instance, I wouldn't use Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani as a source if I could find alternatives. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on your view/suggestion, I obviated Abu al-Faraj..., and added another related reference to the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That would be great, although al-Faraj is still there. For the references/citations in the article, could you include a bit more information (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) - the name of the publisher and the date of the edition. Also, if your source is an arabic script based one (for instance, Persian), could you include the name of the title in Arabic as well, so that there is no confusion (in my opinion, if the source is in Arabic or Persian, the entire reference should be in Arabic or Persian, with transliterations/translations of the author and title). That way someone else can check your sources to confirm the information. I think the best case for keeping the article would be made if a little bit more detail were given. Right now, the article gives various forms of his name, it gives information about his parents and brother, and it says he died at Karbala. All of that is fairly basic information about him, and while it could be enough for an encyclopedia article, it isn't much to go on. But there are hints of more. For instance, he is mention in Ziyarat al-Nahiya al-Mogaddasa. The article could tell the reader that that is a prayer based on the battle of Karbala. It could also tell the reader what the prayer says about this subject (looking at http://www.duas.org/ziaratnahiya.htm, I couldn't figure out where he is mentioned, although maybe he is mentioned in a different or longer version). Also, the article currently says, "although there are other views about that, too." If there are differing accounts of his life and death, it would be nice to know what they are and where they come from (or at least the names of the some of the major historians/scholars/religious writers took note of the subject). If one account is accepted by a significant community (for instance, if predominately Shia believe X), then say that one account is more widely believed. As much as possible, cite 20th and 21st century sources. If you have to use the original histories, try to find recent publications of them, preferably with commentaries, so that the reader might be able to look them up in a source which gives context. Of your online sources, ISNA and maybe Ashoora are your best ones. You can use them to flesh out some of the details a bit more. Also, clarify the reference. For instance, the ISNA article was published 22 Azar 1391, which is, I think, 12 Dec 2012. Is the ashoora link a web version of Encyclopedia of Ashura (Muhaditthy, Jawad, The Encyclopaedia of Ashura, Qum, Maruf publications, Thirteenth edition, 2010.)? If so, then that is a great source. Provide the full citation (probably what I just gave) as well as the link (we call this, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). As it is, it looks like a webpage, which might not be a reliable source. The third link doesn't, I think, mention this subject and is provided to give context about the Ziyarat (which is fine, I'm just mentioning that for others reading).
As an aside about the suitability of the article for the encyclopedia, if the ashoora link is from the Encyclopedia of Ashura, this does not mean that the subject automatically passes WP:ANYBIO, but it might. If anyone knows anything more about the encyclopedia and can speak to it, that would be welcome. Vanity press published English translations are available on Amazon and on archive.org, but those don't seem to have the same contents as ashoora.ir, and the Persian version of the book may or may not be reputably published, I do not know. On the other hand, the ISNA source notes that he is listed as a martyr in various histories, including writings by Ibn Sa'd, Al-Tabari, Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. I'm not striking my !vote just yet, as I think the article should be improved if kept. But given a modern source exist which points to a murderers row of 8th and 9th century scholars who venerated the subject, I suspect he would be a fit subject for an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have tried to look at this a couple times without reaching much of a conclusion other than I am finding it difficult to sort out who is being written about in some cases. As a for instance, the article currently states that he was known historically as both Abdullah the Younger ("al-Asghar") and Abdullah the Elder ("al-Akbar") which is perplexing to me, particularly given that there is a more famous young Abdullah who died at Karbala, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment In order not to cause confusion (based on what @user 24.151.116.12 mentioned, about Asghar/Akbar), I removed "Ali Al-asghar" (which apparently seems to be less famous than Ali-Akbar). And at the moment the text is like that: "... in historical books as Abdullah al-Akbar (in Arabic: عبدالله الاکبر) with the Kunya (title) of Abu Mohammad"Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand, does the source make this claim, if so it should not have been removed, if it does not that means it is OR. Which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: You mentioned an important point; but, I edited/added sources, and the presented text (al-Akbar..., not Al-Asghar) is based on the presented sources which are available in the article --namely, both article/references just mention Al-Akbar (not al-Asghar), and it seems to be more true/probable based on my new research, too.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there any possibility that there has been some confusion with Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn who is described as having been "killed at the age of 18, 19, or 25 at the battle of Karbalā on the day of ʿĀšūrā (10 Moḥarram 61/10 October 680)"? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Gleb Tsipursky

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

This certainly seems right on the edge, however, I believe this fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. While a BEFORE search of Google News finds voluminous hits to Tsipursky, they all come in the form of bylines and boilerplate bios after a bylined article; sources, in other words, that are not WP:INDEPENDENT and don't help us reliably establish any biographical information about him other than the fact he is a living person and prolific essayist. As of now we don't even have enough information on Tsipursky to establish a date of birth. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Located sources for date and place of birth; added references to coverage in independent news sources. Branchc (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
"Located sources for date and place of birth" Facebook, you mean? Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for date of birth - it seems like in this case it meets the guidelines as a reliable source since it's an official page of the subject. Branchc (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete when we are reduced to using facebook to source anything that is a strong indication the person is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case this guideline may need to be reconsidered:

"As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_Myspace) Branchc (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to take a shot at improving this article before a decision is made. I think there is more newsworthy information that has not been added. I agree that it is difficult to find biographical information but I feet he is notable due to recent political activity with the Pro Truth Pledge. I think better sources can be found for the material on the page and it can be expanded somewhat. I'm a fairly minor person here without a ton of edits so forgive me if this is not how this is done.--Slroney (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

He seems to meet the extensive coverage requirement based on my reading of the requirement and his media appearances. While the article certainly fails WP:NACADEMIC I disagree that it fails WP:GNG.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please also refer to WP:INDEPENDENT. Having one's byline appear on a large number of articles one wrote is usually not considered "extensive coverage." Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely does not meet WP:BIO and based on google scholar does not meet WP:PROF. Signs point to undisclosed paid editing. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't want to say anything, however, I did find it unusual that the four editors who have opined to keep, or commented on the AfD Talk page, each have less 140 total edits and have all also decided to make this the first AfD in their editing history on which they chose to comment. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject is well known in other communities for using "paid contractors" hired from upwork to promote himself, so undisclosed paid editing seems very likely. Coverage by him is not independent coverages "about" him so failsWP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. AlasdairEdits (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Suspect a touch of autobiography as well - User:Gleb Tsipursky uploaded the headshot at commons more than once Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Minerva (1864)

Minerva (1864) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Minerva (1864)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

It possibly existed, and nothing is known about it... So why exactly is this an article? Clearly not notable. I'm going to nominate several other articles about non-notable ships in the coming days, as there are many articles about similar subjects. 😎HellaswagdabXD😎emoji😎Talk 18:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research or speculation. I read the reports by James Teer but I cannot conclude that there was definitely a ship named Minerva. Neither do I find any other mentions in historical sources. To preserve accuracy, Wikipedia should only report what has been already researched and published. Till someone researches this topic, I would suggest this article stay deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Based on new evidence, I am changing my opinion.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. No Minerva listed in Lloyd's Register for 1863, 1864 or 1865. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete interesting but not enough evidence to justify an article Lyndaship (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree- the mystery is interesting, its just to little of an article.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I found it!. Per later sources - [9][10][11] - "Minerva of Leith" was shipwrecked on 10 May 1864, four survivors rescued 25 March 1865.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - the WP:RS now fully support the stub. XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think it qualifies; It existed, sure, but the first and third sources still give little information, while the second one is noted to be unverified. Great work on finding those sources though, I would have never been able to find them.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 11:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Money emoji: - the question in my mind is whether we have a list of shipwrecks this would be a good merge to - perhaps List of shipwrecks of Oceania?Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864, based on new evidence. I really appreciate the effort by Icewhiz to find the information. I guess we can add it to the list and maintain a redirect.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864. Does not sustain a standalone article at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Uh-oh The boxes on that page don't seem to work, and it considers the code for a new box actual text, so it just messes up the boxes.. Maybe its just my terrible computer, but I think merging or adding any new ships to that page is impossible. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Money emoji: - I entered it there - works in the source editor, do not know about the visual.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks alot. I was using the source editor, though, not the visual editor, and did exactly what you did...... Whatever, its in there now.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge into article on the General Grant (ship) as the article relates to an item found by its crew while marooned on Enderby Island. A check of New Zealand newspapers of the period do not show any wrecked or missing ships named the Minerva wrecked in the time period. If there was one it would be noted. There were two other wrecks in the vicinity - (Grafton and Invercauld) which could explain the item. There were no reports of a rescue of sailors in 1865 from a ship called Minerva and all the references cited by Icewhiz appear to be based on the General Grant crews account. NealeFamily (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    I have now more thoroughly checked the references used by Icewhiz and found that all rely on the story by James Teer of the General Grant. The second source cited and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. I can only conclude that the article found was from the Invercauld which sank on 10 May 1864 at that location. I do not support it being added to the List of shipwrecks in 1864 as there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the Minerva's existence. The rightful place for the story is under the General Grant NealeFamily (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are no other sources, including Lloyd's or other reports, for the sinking of a ship called Minerva. Nonetheless, my preceding sentence is WP:OR!!! Just as much as your (possibly correct) contention that "the article found was from the Invercauld". More WP:OR! Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Absent WP:RS that unequivocally dispute the existence and sinking of the Minerva, it would be a WP:POLICIES violation to substitute your WP:OR or mine for the following fact: Icewhiz found two rock-solid WP:RS which state witness claims for the sinking of the Minerva. Respect for policies and sources requires keeping the article, until other reliable sources disprove the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
To avoid WP:OR you need to look at the three sources Icewhiz cites as supporting the existence of the Minerva. All three rely on James Teer's chronicle from the Southland Times of 15 January 1868 - https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18680115.2.9. In the newspaper article he states .. we found .. a stave which was written with charcoal the words "Minerva .... The writer, Teer, and the subsequent publications all rely on this stave as evidence for the existence of a ship called Minerva being wrecked. There is no other evidence. The second source cited by Icebiz and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. No original research is needed to cast doubt on the ships existence. This second source is the WP:RS that does that = see the footnote on page xxvii - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44371#page/31/mode/1up
Just for clarity, I agree my contention that it was most likely the Invercauld is speculative by myself and therefore WP:OR. My argument is that there is insufficient evidence for a standalone article on a ship that most likely does not exist or is at best one of mistaken identity. NealeFamily (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Saying this was Invercauld would be OR (without a source. And I'll note that this would've been a very small boat or ship with a 5 man crew - if it existed - not a large noteworthy vessel either way). It seems some sources were convinced that this alleged ship existed or possibly existed (there are a few more than repeat this - but don't have preview - I think I saw this in parliamentary records too) - enough to list it. It seems that if we are to retain (in a list) the Minerva - we should place the equivalent of an asterisk next to it - saying this is based on so and so, and that there are some doubts.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure 5 man boat would be sailing that far south unless they had a death wish. Anyway, I agree that saying it was the Invercauld would be OR. It would not be OR if you stated the Ínvercauld was wrecked on the same day. As to there being other records, that may well be true but all those that I have found to date are referenced back to the statement by James Teer. There is no other source that pre-dates his statement or references to some other evidence as far as I can find. If you have found one let me know. I think putting this in the General Grant (ship) article would retain the story and turning this into a redirect would assist readers. NealeFamily (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. there does not seem to be any confirmable evidence that such a ship ever existed. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the questions over whether or not Minerva existed, so little is known it does not seem worth having its own article when the key details are on List of shipwrecks in 1864. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Mosul (1745)

Battle of Mosul (1745) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Battle of Mosul (1745)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No reliable source mentions a battle at Mosul in 1745. Sykes source mentions a siege in 1743(p.268, 3rd edition), but nothing else concerning Mosul. Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No idea. Per Sykes(p.268-269) it mentions the battle of Kars(1745), but no mention of Mosul. Then Sykes talks about The Pioneer Journeys of Elton, 1739-1742. There is no mention of a battle/siege at Mosul in A Global Chronology of Conflict, Vol 2, page 743, which covers the battle of Kars. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 7, page 309, mentions the siege of Mosul in 1743, but no mention of any conflict in 1745. And, Lockhart, Laurence. Nadir Shah: A critical study based mainly upon contemporary sources, used for that mention of "debacle of Mosul", is non-viewable on google books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep Lockhart, Laurence, Nadir Shah: A Critical Study Based Mainly Upon Contemporary Sources (1938) p. 250 (snippet view) does describe "a striking success [Nadir]'s son Nasrullah had gained over the Turks near Mosul" which a snippet from the index on p. 340 refers to as "victory over the Turks near Mosul in 1745". Some support for some kind of engagement near Mosul in 1745 involving Nasrullah but not for the detail in the article without more. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another brief mention of Nadir's son having "inflicted a serious defeat on an army of Ottomans and Kurds near Mosul". Axworthy, Michael, Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant (2010) pp. 289-290. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Another very brief account contains the name of the Turkish commander: "[Nadir's] son meanwhile had gained a complete victory over Abdulla Pasha near Mosul...." Herbert John Maynard, Nadir Shah (1885) p. 49.. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I am coming to the conclusion that all of these accounts derive from Marvi Yazdi, Mohammad Kazem, Alam Ara-ye Naderi (3 vols.) (AAN) ed. Mohammad Amin Riyahi, Tehran (Third edition) 1374/1995, which is cited in the article. I am assuming that this in Persian and have no access to it any event, so it comes down to deciding whether the three brief accounts above are enough to satisfy that this article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I'm satisfied this happened (per sources presented by 24.151.116.12 and what I see) - that the son of Nader Shah is reported to have won a victory next to Mosul while the Battle of Kars was ongoing. I am concerned in that the sources we have online in English are fairly short (mainly mentioning that this happened - but not going into the details of the battle) - however I suspect there would be non-English sources here. A merge to Battle of Kars, may also be a viable result.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to Batlle of Kars. There does not seem to be enough information to regard it as as sufficiently important incident to call it a battle in a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 18 April 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=836707706"
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