Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


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

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

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

Social science

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty

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

Highly promotional article that does not establish notability per WP:GNG (some coverage of a speech he gave as 16-year-old in 2001, which the article claims has similar impact as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream", and one later blog post). HaeB (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. As a youth he made some speeches and founded several organizations of unclear notability.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael L. Radelet

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

Michael L. Radelet has requested that his Wikipedia page be taken down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumo76163 (talkcontribs) 15:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Radelet seems to be the "go-to" guy whenever the death penalty gets brought up, but with that being said there's almost nothing about him; every source I can find is either a quote from him or a reference to his work. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • delete - per subject request Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't matter what the subject thinks, it only matter whether he is notable or not (well, that and WP:BLP stuff). The article doesn't seem to have BLP issues, it is hardly quality coverage, but it is on par with what we usually have (often written by the subjects themselves, or by their friends/students/etc.). The subject passes WP:PROF - Google Scholar shows numerous articles by him (often co-authored, but still...) with 200+, a lot more with 100+, citations. He has a solo-authored publication in American Sociological Review, that's a flagship sociological journal. As far as works about him and his impact, there's not much (he isn't dead yet, so no obituaries, etc.) but I found C. Ronald Huff; Martin Killias (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems. Routledge. pp. 402–. ISBN 978-0-415-53993-7. : "His work on erroneous convictions... is widely credited with introducing the "innocence argument" into contemporary death penalty debates". Granted, that's from a section on contributor's biographies and it might have been written by him, but it is in a reliably-published academic book. Overall, I think he is on the notable side of notability, and that means his bio stays. If the subject thinks there are inaccuracies/bias, he should be more clear and report them on the talk page/here/help forum, and we can take a look at fixing the article. Also ping User:Randykitty. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Dislike

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

Unsourced dictionary entry, with some social media usage. Does not belong here. Killer Moff (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Black art

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

Delete: Fails the conditions of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Of the 20 terms listed on the page only one - Black art (theatre) - has the words "Black art" in it. However, it is a redirect to Glossary of magic (illusion)#B. This discussion was first listed on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion page in section "Should this disambiguation page be deleted?" on 22 May 2017. No response has been given. Mitchumch (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think the point is that those are all things that are called black arts. Therefore someone searching for them might search that term looking for one of those items. It doesn't need to be the only or main name. LadyofShalott 04:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment @LadyofShalott: According to WP:CONCEPTDAB which states, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page."
Disambiguation pages are only for articles with the same or nearly the same titles, not concepts. Mitchumch (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think this should become an article, then AfD is hardly the way to go. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: I am following the guidelines stated at Wikipedia:Disambiguation in section "Deletion" which states, "Although disambiguation pages are not articles, a disambiguation page may be listed at Articles for deletion to discuss whether the disambiguation page should be deleted."
I never stated that I think this page should become an article. Please do not mistake the excerpt above from Wikipedia:CONCEPTDAB as a reflection of my personal opinion. I am only stating what this page is not - a disambiguation page. If someone here chooses to make it an article page, then I have no objections. But, that person is not me. Mitchumch (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete there's no way the article can survive as a non-disambiguation page (it refers currently to black magic, criminal behaviors, African art, and a few extra nonsense things like Printing), and it doesn't work as a disambiguation page either. Possibly a speedy candidate as WP:G3 . Power~enwiki (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've just added Lee Perry's record label. With the theatre and the movement, there are now three topics with this name, or close enough to it, plus some of the others could be shown to be known as 'black art' I'm sure. It's trivially easy to find sources for this term equating to black magic, African-American art, espionage, etc. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - and one of the major pieces of the movement is specifically named Black Art. I have added that to the list. LadyofShalott 14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been sufficiently expanded, with the record label, theatrical term, artwork by Amiri Baraka, and redirect to African-American art. I'm not convinced by the very long list of everything that might be called the black arts, but that can be debated later. I'm a bit surprised that Wikipedia has no article on Rollo Ahmed (an associate of Dennis Wheatley) who wrote a book called The Black Art[1][2], which could be another entry on the list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment @Colapeninsula: @LadyofShalott: I think there is a separate issue here. Both of you don't appear to be aware of Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Please read WP:CONCEPTDAB for the "Broad-concept articles" section of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. There has to be, at the very least, an existing article with the term "Black art" in the title for it to be listed on the disambiguation page. Even then "Don't include every article containing the title" according to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Mitchumch (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the expansion doesn't actually improve the article. It's still a disambiguation page with multiple problems and no plausible single redirect target. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. After the expansion this dab page contains entries for at least three topics that are unequivocally and straightforwardly known as "Black art". Any potential issues with the page should be addressed via editing. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the page is now in good enough shape that I strike my previous delete vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I second Power~enwiki new position. I strike my previous delete vote on the condition that new violations of WP:NAMELIST and WP:DABRELATED do not reappear. Mitchumch (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing your nomination then? LadyofShalott 03:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@LadyofShalott: So long as that page adheres to Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Mitchumch (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Libre (word)

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

Previously deleted under the title "Libre" (see discussion), later undeleted and dragged through AFC after some cosmetic tweaks. The issues raised in the previous nomination have not been addressed at all; I think the nomination statement I wrote back then could stand today as-is. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure what it speaks about the Articles for Creation process.) Here is a new rationale anyway.

This article spends most time discussing various strands of the broadly-construed free-culture movement (which is already covered elsewhere anyway), with a particular focus on using the word "libre" when referring to them, even if the references provided in the article do not even contain the word. After that, it goes off wild tangents in order to connect topics with very little to no relation to each other. Please especially take note of sentences like "Several albums with title tracks containing the word libre have achieved international acclaim and some have been nominated for Grammy Awards." (no citation for this, of course) and completely made-up claims like that the masks of Pussy Riot members are inspired by lucha libre wrestlers. No, they are not: this is simply what you end up with when you take a piece of cloth to conceal your face and cut some holes in it for the eyes and the mouth; there are very few degrees of freedom here in how the result may end up looking. This is silly pareidolia.

This is not an encyclopedia article, but an original-research, WP:COATRACK, rambling essay-like piece apparently written to advance an obscure-ish activist cause. Even if an article about the ostensible topic of this article (the word "libre") were warranted, it better be written from scratch. —Keφr 15:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois Wikipedia

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

Unclear importance, no sources found or in article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Beyond the existence of this particular project, I can't find any sources either. Interesting to know that it exists, but no notability as yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And as a side-note, if this is the orthography-to-be for the language, suddenly Reggae will become almost entirely incomprehensible! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cavaco (surname)

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

Only one extant link; the only reason I'm bringing it here as it seems to have survived seven years as is and I want to check nothing's amiss. Launchballer 20:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not up on policy, but the obvious options are either keep or move to Cavaco (disambiguation). More entries have been added, so it now includes 3 people, a placename and a guitar also known as a cavaco (a redirect). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. It's a valid page now with multiple entries. It should probably be at Cavaco (disambiguation) though, but as long as both names redirect to the page, it should be fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Prodded articles


History

List of military disasters

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

Article with a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. In addition, the list strikes me as a POV creation, as one side's "disaster" is another side's "brilliant success".

The article has been tagged as OR since Aug 2016 and has not been improved since, or since the two prior AfDs for that matter. It is still almost entirely unsourced, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of books have been written about this: World's Worst Military Disasters, Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day, Roman Military Disasters: Dark Days & Lost Legions, etc. Also articles: "The greatest disasters in military history". The Burnsides and Custers of this world are not to be denied. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a POV problem, and the language seems to be in use in secondary sources - if an event is described as a "military disaster" in secondary sources, it would be suitable for inlcusion here. Since there are numerous sources for this, I don't see any problem with keeping the article. Seraphim System (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I grant the nom's point regarding inclusion criteria, but also the previous keep !voters' objections that such issues can be overcome by regular editing--that is, proper sourcing and inclusion criteria can be applied without needing deletion. 'Military disaster' has plenty of RS coverage, so the list is not NN. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep 1st point the term "Military Disaster" is the common term used for military failures in literature written about this. Secondly, there are a number of books, articles and websites that address this topic, so it would be worthy of an article. It may need more references, but there are no ground to delete it, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. See no grounds for deletion. Maybe a clear list inclusion criteria, which can be addressed by WP:NOTDUP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment -- I do not see the sources listed as convincing. They are popular history books mostly by non-notable authors:
  • Chris McNab: The World's Worst Military Disasters. The author does not have a wiki article, appears to be a popular history & militaria author (other books include The FN Minimi Light Machine Gun: M249, L108A1, L110A2, and other variants, among others). Published by Rosen Publishing, which produces books for children ages through K12.
  • Geoffrey Regan: Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Regan is a popular history author.
  • Paul Chrystal: Roman Military Disasters, published by Pen & Sword. Comes from a militaria publisher & a nn author.
The list is too subjective to be encyclopedically relevant, IMO. The article on the topic of Military disaster is a redirect to this list, with the definition of "military disaster" being cited to said McNab.
The only way I see of salvaging this article is to remove anything uncited (two prior AfD is plenty of chances for improvement) and / or move it to List of events (possibly) described as military disasters in popular history books. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sefin

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

This 'person' is either extremely obscure or didn't exist at all. The only books I find that name her are from a single self-published author, so she may be his invention, or she may just be such an obscure figure that nobody else finds her worth mentioning. Her claim to notability seems to fail WP:NOTINHERITED, being based solely on who her grandson was (or who it claims she was grandmother of). That the article states that "Nothing is known of her except her place in the genealogies" speaks volumes as to her lack of notability, and even this is debatable, as Bartrum's compendium of early Welsh genealogies fails to mention her.[3] She may be a moden invention created to link St. David genealogically to Brychan Brycheiniog, who is given as many almost 100 children in various sources and hence was a prime target for genealogical fabrication. I don't see how even an authentic Sefin could pass GNG, let alone a dubious one. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think this is a hoax, and a possible destination for a merger would be Brychan, but I don't think that is correct. Google book search finds a result for Llansefin (Welsh for the Church of Sefin) (which sources say may also be called Llansemin) on River Sefin (also known as Afon Brân)[4]. Llansemin is mentioned in histories of Brychan [5]. Perhaps some expert in orthography could find a cognate of Sefin or Semin or Sevin in the daughters of Brychan, but I don't see it. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Dahoum

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

I'm not exactly sure what this article is supposed to be about. OK, so he was a kid who worked with TE Lawrence some, but the article itself seems to be about (largely debunked) insinuations about his "relationship" with Lawrence which the latter's biographers do not find convincing (as noted in the rather messy section on his article about his sexuality).

This article is just thinly-veiled insinuation with some completely unremarkable biographical details thrown in. The vast majority of the sources I've been able to find online have erected him as some sort of LGBT icon, which doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion here for the reason I just noted.

I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I don't personally think it even warrants a merge into Lawrence's article. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • He was a real person, but it’s clear that he only is notable in his connection with T.E. Lawrence. While it has not been proved, it is fairly widely believed among Lawrence scholars that Dahoum is the “S.A.” to whom Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated, and the subject of Lawrence’s remark “I loved a particular Arab, and thought freedom for their nation would be an acceptable gift.” For me, that crosses the notability bar, but I can see that there is room for debate on the subject. I believe there was some news coverage of Dahoum’s pre-war visit to Britain, arranged by Lawrence and in company with another local resident of the Carchemish area; but I’ve never taken the trouble to dig it up. Tim Bray (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - I don't think he is notable enough in his own right to have a page, but certainly notable enough to be merged with Lawrence.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete (or redirect) -- My immediate reaction to this was NOTINHERITED. I do not think the tag for facts being unverified is appropriate. The article sets out the issues clearly. Lawrence died in a motor cycle accident some 80 years ago and the subject nearly a century ago: as often with historical subjects, certainly is impossible. The subject's only potential notability comes from his connection with Lawrence, at a period of his life when Lawrence was a not particularly notable young archaeologist. The whole thing seems to be a COATHANGER for the innuendo that Lawrence was gay, an issue of which I know little. However I am disturbed at the number of historical figures whom the LGBT lobby has appropriated to its cause, often on the basis of very limited evidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as NOTINHERITED; no opinion on a redirect to T. E. Lawrence. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord

List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

In addition, I'm nominating similar articles created in the same timeframe. The rationale above is equally applicable to these lists:

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Schoen

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

I couldn't find evidence of the required notability for this abbot. Neither searching for "Thomas Schoen" abt Bornem nor "Thomas Schoen" abbot Bornem gave me any significant reliable sources about him, just passing mentions like the one in the source given in the article. Fram (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • delete my searches fail to located sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Redirect to the abbey sounds fine here. He appears to have been a mitred abbot, which means that there are probably sources for him somewhere. The only problem being that we can't find them. Since it is a biography, I'm not comfortable keeping it without better sourcing found that can attest to the facts of his life, but this should be able to be recreated if someone can find sources (including offline ones). Edit: if that sourcing can be found, this history might be useful for recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • At worst, Merge/redirect to his abbey, which has a list of some of the abbots. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. on at the least redirect. Heads of such major organizations are presumed notable, which means they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @DGG:: what "major organization"? It's an abbey, many abbeys are and were really small or medium-sized affairs, not "major organisations". Heads of such "major organisations" are not "presumed notable", no idea where you get this. "they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it." is utter nonsense which I didn't expect from an admin. I can't prove a negative, and this is "never" requested at AfD. If you want to keep it, you have to show that he is personally notable based on sources, not on some imaginary rule for a "major" arganisation, which this isn't. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • DGG is right that being an abbot means that there will typically be enough sourcing to demonstrate notability and that this should be considered under WP:NPOSSIBLE. At the same time while he is dead and so doesn't have BLP protections, I'm not comfortable ignoring WP:V on any biographical article. Redirecting serves the purpose of balancing these two positions because it keeps the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • No, DGG is wrong. Many abbots are largely forgotten figures. Abbeys exist in all sizes and importances. Perhaps this one was important, but many abbots are hardly known at all. NPOSSIBLE is all fine and well, but not a reason to keep an article if no indication at all is given of said sources. Fram (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep on balance of things; being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO. Also, the prior abbot of the Bornem Abbey has an article. I suspect sources exist, most likely offline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO." No, not at all, anyone can have a portrait painted for himself or for the head of the organisation. . And his predecessor has an article because "He became the 74th Abbot-General of the Cistercian Order." which is a much stronger claim to notability. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It might well apply if it were a famous painter, but Jean Baptiste Anthony is not. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Emperor niger

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

This is a direct copy of the Kingdom of Koya article with an added first portion that appears to be a badly translated essay of some sort, with numerous unsourced claims. If there's any salvageable content it belongs on the other page. PROD was removed by creator without any issues being addressed. This same content appears to have been spammed to multiple other Wikis. JamesG5 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete article is pure nonsense. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete bad translation, a copy of the other article and a lack of reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, seems to be some sort of essay not an encyclopedia article. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete crazy mutterings, and redirect to Kingdom of Koya [[6]] Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: this nonsense. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- It has all the feel of OR except where forking the other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. --Lockley (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel K. Longman

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

Longman is a writer on local topics who lacks any clear indication of passing writer or academic notability guidelines, and none of the sources pass the combined reliable and indepth test to show passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A prolific author with a press publishing popular (non-academic) history. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable as an author. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Apology of Scanderbeg

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

This article is almost incomprehensible, due to a combination of poor English, non-neutral viewpoint, and lack of organization. The only reference is to a work in a foreign language that (contrary to the statement of this article) is not Latin. If this is meant to be an article about the work, it should cite both the work and reliable sources who have stated that the work is notable. As it is, this does not establish notability as to whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep the article needs to be dramatically improved, and it appears that Albanian editors are currently doing so. I suspect that sources do exist, though they are not present. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or potentially redirect to Frang Bardhi (where it is already mentioned). There are a lot of problems here, not the least of which is that most of the text is a (probably machine-translated) copyvio of this source. That notwithstanding, there has clearly been at least one full cycle of translation for some of this material, and as a result it gets a lot simply wrong. "Tomko Margnavici" is Ivan Tomko Mrnavić (also styled as the Latinized Tomeus Marnavitius, but never as anything similar to "Margnavici"), for example. And the actual title of the work—Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotatum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus—has a rather different generally recognized English translation than given here. Finally, the title here is something of an issue, and makes me nervous about a redirect; there are exactly two sources that refer to this work as the "Apology of Scanderbeg" (or Skanderbeg): one is the source that this is largely copied from, and the other is a trivial mention on the website of the municipal library in Lezhë. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I am pretty sure it is notable, as I have found a journal article that specifically addresses this work (written in Albanian, but the abstract is in English).[7] It refers to this as notable as the first polemic written by an Albanian about an Albanian subject. I don't think it is well known in English but if this is a translation of the commonly used (in ALbania) abbreviated title, I don't have a problem with it - we certainly don't want to call it Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus if we can avoid it (although I would suggest, since it is a translation and not a commonly used English name, that we rename to use the Skanderbeg spelling used elsewhere on en.wiki for the hero). I have tried to clean up the language and removed the over-the-top praise given the author, and there is more work to be done - there is a quote that is poorly translated. However, I think it likely meets the bar for notability, so we should look at improving rather than deleting it. Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It feels notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge It would be worth an article, except that there is a real problem with the title that would make it preferable to merge. TThe current one is is a made-up title for the book. It appears there is no convenient title in any modern language. The Latin title cited above Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus is the title of the book, . We could give a literal translation--there's a source for one in Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Albania as published[8]], found also in the same word in that writer's A biographical dictionary of Albanian History -- it would be George Castrioti of Epirus, commonly called Scanderbeg, the very mighty and invincible prince of Epirus restored to his people and his country, as mentioned also in the article. The article must be called one or the other. It would be easier to find if it were merged in the article for the author. According to WP:N, meeting the notability standard does not guarantee an article if there are other considerations. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Eaude

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

These are largely unsourced and possibly contains original research. Not a notable name per WP:APONOTE as there are not at least two notable people with the name. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like the page creator may be planning pages for the two people listed. But the process has a way to go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge - if there are only 11 people with this surname in all of England, I am going to need some secondary work on the family to show it is noteworthy, and to back up the speculation and Original Research presented. That being said, much of the same material appears on Youd, Youde and Yould all created or heavily edited by the same editor, and all of which have a very small number of Wikilinked family members - it seems to be an unneccesary content-forking multiplication over what are nothing but rare spelling variants. I think the best solution would be to have a single page that encompasses all of these, probably under the namespace of the most common, Youd. Such a merged page would still only have a handful of Wikilinked names, and we would avoid having four pages that all repeat the same OR (which would also need to be addressed). Agricolae (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I do not think we can have an article on every surname. If there are several articles on people with that surname we would have a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge Yould, Youd, Youde and possibly Eaude, as these are unnecessary content forks apparently based on spelling variation. The article will have enough blue-linked entries to meet WP:APONOTE. Noting the existence of the similarly looking Youds, which according to these articles is unrelated. – Uanfala (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Memoria viva de la transición

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

Does not meet any of the five criteria for book notability. Mathglot (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely as a memoir by a clearly notable man, merging would be more sensible? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps. As a standalone article, I don't see it. The book is a sequel to memoirs by ex-P.M. Calvo-Sotelo about Spain's transition to democracy, a clearly notable topic, but as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papers from an unemployed person books don't inherit notability from the notability of their chosen subject area. On the other hand, I think it's likely that a new sub-section in the article about the author would be warranted, with consideration for due weight. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the "drive-by comment" at Afd/Papers from an unemployed person, since reviews are included in notability and this book clearly has reviews, I see no point in continuing this. Nomination withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- The political memoirs of a Prime Minister (Presidente) are likely to be notable, but this is a horrid article. There appears to be another volume of memoirs. Could we combine them into one article? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Uzma Begum

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

Shahrizal shahanshah (and their subsequently blocked sock) has been creating articles for characters of the Indian TV show Razia Sultan (TV series) (which apparently features some historical figures and a number of fictional characters), presenting them as historical. None of these article have sources to demonstrate their historicity and none seem to exist. This editor isn't responding to policy pointers and continues to recreate the articles when they're speedily deleted. Eperoton (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, described above:

Shazia Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shamshad Begum (Valide Sultan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qutub Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zubruddin Mirza Rashil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nadira Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shah Turkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Cpt.a.haddock has found a source for this one)
Prince Yasir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fatima Begum (Validah Sultan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Shah Turkan is a notable entry. As noted above, I've added a source to the article and cleaned it up a bit. The others all appear to be minor characters at best and even if sources can be found for them, I don't believe they warrant separate articles.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not keep -- If her historicity can be established, merge/redirect to her husband (who if not another fiction) may be notable. If she is fiction, then plain delete. This is a comment on the first item. I rely on the nom as ti similar considerations applying to the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hando Ruus

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

An unremarkable SS captain. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found: link.

Richard Landwehr's Estonian Vikings is a fringe publication. Some coverage from apparently non-RS The history of battalion "Narva": Stronger than steel from a small-time publisher, plus other passing mentions.

I don't believe that significant RS coverage for the subject, either in English or Estonian, exists, as is typical for low ranking Waffen-SS commanders. The article has been de-PRODed with the rationale that the subject was a recipient of the Iron Cross, 1st class. This does not meet SOLDIER #1, as Iron Cross was not the highest German award for valour during World War II. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, he received Iron Cross First and Second Classes, as well as other medals. I was not clear in my rationale for removing the ProD. This is the right place to discuss his notability-- or lack there of.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

*Delete. There's nothing in the SOLDIER notability guidelines that he meets, although he was certainly present for a number of significant engagements. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep per sources cited by Nug below. It's possible to argue that the second link (which seems to be focused on the battalion, rather than the man) is more an "in passing" kind of mention, but I'm giving a fair bit of weight to the fact that there's a book specifically about the subject of this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross doesn't guarantee notability, much less a First Class one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and previous comments.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per other comments. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • DElete -- Battalion commanders are generally NN, even if decorated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, topic of a number of secondary reliable secondary sources independent of the subject [9], [10] (the second link is the second edition of the source linked by the nominator above). Sources do not have to be written in English per WP:GNG, and while the publisher may be consided "small time" in the English language space, certainly more significant in Estonian particularly if a second edition is published. --Nug (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the evidence that that these are reliable sources? Please see WP:IRS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

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

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have expanded the article significantly, and added references and many wikilinks. Let me know how you feel about these changes. -PKM (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been a significant amount of reliable source commentary about this particular caftan as evidenced by the improvements to the article and supporting references. Nice job. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (but with concerns about implications - see comment) - Hmmm. Keep does set a pretty dangerous precedent, for exactly the concerns I had with an earlier AFD that I opened for discussion - while very specific, individual museum exhibits (that aren't typical artworks) are notable (such as Tristan Quilt or Margaret Layton's embroidered jacket or Luck of Edenhall - these are very exceptional instances. (I also thought of the Tarkhan dress but that article is very minimal, although the object itself is indisputably notable). This is "my area of specialism" - being clothing/fashion related - and I'm dubious about it because of these reasons. I vote keep, because I feel obligated to do so based on the article and that it is something sort of approaching my area of specialism, but I am aware that this will potentially make it fair game to flood Wikipedia with articles on every single thing from museum catalogues that has been discussed in multiple sources. I think notability for this garment as a very rare survival of its type has been demonstrated beyond doubt. However, if kept it will need to be renamed so as not to confuse it with the 100+ other caftans in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Has this caftan a "name?" Is it called, say, the Moshchevaja Balka Caftan? Perhaps someone should create Moshchevaja Balka burial to discuss the archaeological site and the artefacts found therein, and have a chapter/section there specifically for this caftan as a notable artefact found therein? Mabalu (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mabalu:. Did you notice sourcing is entirely PRIMARY, to journals published by the Met (and 2 cites sourcing info about the type, not the specific object). Would you consider supporting a redirect to a new article about archaeologically discovered textiles or garments along the silk road? (you would know how to phrase/delimit such an articls better than I.) Because, as you say, keeping articles about objects sources exclusively to the museum that owns them is a highly problematic precedent to set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
On the naming question, drawing from examples in a different medium, one could include the accession number., as in Neck Amphora by Exekias (Berlin F 1720). The new title could be Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1) or Caftan from Caucasus region (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Vases are often referred to in this way, like manuscripts; generally catalogue/accession numbers are best avoided in titles, as no-one even in the field will recognize them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree that the article could gave a stronger name. Thinking about what it should be called .... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (as expanded) any reasonably complete 1200-year-old garment from anywhere is very likely to be notable, for heaven's sake, as they are so rare. Personally I am in favour of decent articles on individual examples of all sorts of artefacts. There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Yes, a more specific name would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is trying to do too much, covering both what a caftan is and one fine example of one in a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, following article expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep As above, any object like this, 1200-year-old - rare as hen's teeth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep To say that "Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world", is not germane to the deletion discussion. It very well could, even though it shouldn't attempt to do so, because Wikidata is much better suited to that purpose (and to be honest, I sincerely hope that one day Wikidata will have an entry on all artefacts collected by major museums). Wikipedia isn't printed on paper, so has no size limitation that would preclude including all 380,000 objects in the collection of the Louvre for example (about the same as the number of articles on sportspeople, 355,876). I do agree that not each instance of a collectable item is individually notable, but this particular artefact is notable as an exceptionally rare item, and the content can be reliably sourced. Mduvekot (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Because the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced (correction: lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing) (with the exception of 2 sources that describe this category of garment, not the garment itself). I love articles on individual museum objects such as the Arles Rhône 3 or the Magdala stone, but objects require secondary sourcing. Here we have only the Museum's own curators and journals. I think we need to Redirect and merge to an article on something like Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The sources are not WP:PRIMARY at all, but they do lack full independence. However, this is normal in articles on museum objects, where the best sources are very often provided by the museum, although often only as publisher, with the authors outside experts. There is no precedent being set here; instead the normal practice is being followed. In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The articles cited are scholarly, but they are published in the journal of the Museum that owns the object. Notability needs to be supported by sources that are independent of the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. Btw, Knauer at least does not seem to have been a museum employee. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Johnblod, you are aware that the Met Journal commissions such articles, not for pay, rather, the Museum invites scholarly experts to come to the museum in order to examine a specific object and write it up for the journal? All perfectly scholarly and legit, just not independent.(private but widely understood info among museum professionals; no I don't have a source for this assertion. I just know how this journal works.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course. And I am aware of the standards WP normally applies for such articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not questioning the scholarship, only WP:INDY. I have brought this question to [11].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a conflict of interest, but COI's can be managed, and the MMA's standards, like those of other major museums, are such that it can reasonably be assumed that they have been. If there was a decent name to use as a search term it is very possible other sources would turn up. There may well be ones in Russian, but that's little help to most of us. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect target? Unless notability can be WP:INDEPENDENTLY sourced, I suggest that this discussion focus on finding an appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per E.M. Gregory. Sources most affiliated with the subject. Also agreeing with Peterkingiron's comment that most of the article expanded version does not deal with that particular caftan but with caftans in similar contexts. Hence, the deadly blow to Wikipedia's general architecture, that keeping such a page would mean. A peril that Mabalu explains very well in his comment. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a cogent, interesting, appropriately sourced article, exactly what I think of as "encyclopedic". The concerns about COI and independent sources are valid -- but unavoidable with many many objects of antiquity. @PKM:'s work here to expand the article is solid. The article should be renamed per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Vodamayuta

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

No Citation, Self written Wikibaji (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete then redirect. According to what is written, Vodamayuta is a former name for a city, Budaun, (source:Ancient India book) with an existing article. Thus would have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". With little history for the city at the article (which might allow a fork/split), a redirect is most appropriate. Spshu (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect [was "Merge"]. It doesn't duplicate an existing topic, because the Vaduan article's history section doesn't mention it. It could be merged though, leaving a redirect behind. I don't know its motive, but the suggestion to delete the topic before redirecting it strikes me as mean-spirited, as if to punish the original contributor for actually contributing something worthwhile. Their contribution should be kept at least in the edit history of the redirect. --doncram 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Before and after my recent edit to Budaun (not Vaduan) does in fact mention Vodamayuta: "According to tradition, Budaun was founded about 905 AD, and an inscription, probably of the 12th century, gives a list of twelve Rathor kings reigning at Budaun (called Vodamayuta)." This is directly from the EB1911 Encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay i stand corrected. Redirect. --doncram 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to Badayun, or rather Budaun. There is no need for the present stub, other than as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ayriss

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

Ineligible for PROD - was deprodded in 2007. I can't find any indication this family is notable as a whole. Sources are all user-generated and I can't locate any others. ♠PMC(talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the family isn't notable; article is (semi-)original research. I don't see any notable people named Ayriss that could be a merge/redirect target, so delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A NN snippet of family history of a NN family, without any RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary and nor should it be. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Chateau de monterminod

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See fr:Roussette de Monterminod. This is likely notable. But should the article be about the castle, the wine or the vineyard? Srnec (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- A medieval castle is likely to be notable. The incorrectly capitalised redirect can certainly be deleted as unnecessary. However this is an adequately referenced article, and I see no reason to remove it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are you joking, "adequately referenced"? Did you even look at them? JMHamo (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Magadha Kingdom

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

Extremely confusing content. Lack of verifiability. Doubts are casted within the article as who the king was. Completely unencyclopaedic, with no scope for improvement. Also, as per this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Legendary kings of Magadha is a mess, possibly needs to go to AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a duplicate or fork of Magadha. I'm not seeing any referenced material to merge. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The Vedas and Mahabaratha fall into the realm of myth, rather than history, but that is no reason why we should not have an article on them. It is not or at least should not be a fork of the article on the modern place. The fact that a related article is a mess is no reason for deletion. Any issue as to lack of sourcing is irrelevant, since the Indian epic is a source in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • and de-tag The article is not a good one, but (contrary to the tags) it does not lack citations: there are textual ones to the Mahabaratha. It might be criticised for relying too much on primary sources, but that is no reason for deletion. I suspect the answer is that it needs attention from an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Peterkingiron: The article doe not have any tags regarding citations. I dont call myself an expert on this topic, but i am very well knowledgeable. I dont have any issue with sources being primary. But the fact still remains the same, our article here is not an encyclopaedic one. Also, the mentions are trivial within the original scripture. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was referring to a verification tag. These appear to be calling for verification of a kind that is wholly inappropriate to myth/legend. The only verification possible is the citations of the epic, which is provided. I agree that the structure is unsatisfactory, but suspect that the source does not permit more. This is a common situation with ancient history and is difficult to get around. I have seen tags of this kind, calling for more content, which are tantamount to inviting OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Canon of Amsterdam

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

This look like a non-notable list. The only cited reference is the web page of the contest itself, which is offline now. I can't find any other reliable sources with significant coverage. Google News Search returns no hits [12]. Similarly, Google Books search returns only one, self published book.[13] Vanjagenije (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - can you comment on the Dutch spelling of the subject, Canon van Amsterdam? I haven't had a chance to look very closely, but google news and books give results for that spelling. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem accessing the website [14], but that is not an independent source. The cited further reading book source is also available: De canon van Amsterdam and is, itself, cited in several Amsterdam guides, e.g., Imagining Global Amsterdam: History, Culture, and Geography in a World City and Amsterdam: A History of the World's Most Liberal City. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This appears to be a list of 50 topics related to Amsterdam, selected by the authors of a book as "windows" on the city. Many are significant (and have articles) but the selection of this (rather than some other) 50 is the author's and is ultimately a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peterkingiron's reasoning and because the whole thing seems so promotional in spirit. --Lockley (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa

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

I had this restored after prod deletion because a lot of WP:EFFORT went into it at WP:PNT and I thought it deserved every chance. I have the feeling she doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC but I'm not sure, also the article resembles a resumée and there seems to be a COI Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- To my mind this is a sufficient body of published work to merit retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    Not really sure if I should be trying to get this deleted, but in order to advance the discussion I will point out that there is no policy that says quantity of published work indicates notability. @Peterkingiron: Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It has to be a balancing act between quantity and quality. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Has published very recent books in a low cited field. As a result few cites. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep as likely a pass of WP:NAUTHOR with multiple published books. Éditions Geuthner appears to be a scholarly publisher. I believe we are hampered by the language difference here and that sources are likely to exist in French. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It's having the stuff recognized by others that confers it. If sources exist in French the search engines should find them. They can't yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Comment: WorldCat lists 9 works in 17 publications and 61 library holdings, which by itself doesn't scream notable IMO, but I include this for others to assess. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. She seems to be a perfectly competent academic, doing what academics do. She meets neither of our principal standards for inclusion of academics here – she is not a full professor, and her work has been cited only very infrequently. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Owen McPolin

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

Notability. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see at least half a dozen references in Google Books, which all seem to be a paragraph or more. Unfortunately they are all in snippet view. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article reveals nothing exceptional in his career. This means the question is whether ran Apostolic Prefect is a jigh enough post to be notable without more. Not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - As Apostolic Prefect, he was the head of a diocese which would later be headed by an archbishop, and is thus listed with the bishops on the diocese web page [15]. He has some coverage, as StAnselm points out, in English language religious literature. I found and added info from two webpages with brief profiles about him in Korean (as "임 오웬"), but I'm not sure this is the best transliteration of his name and wonder if more information could be found about him in that language. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Holocaust in curricula

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

TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops, Twinkle rather ran away with me here. IMO this could be speedied as duplicating the topic {{Education about the holocaust]], created by the autor of this article. I'm dubious about their Genocide education as well....TheLongTone (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheLongTone, Thanks for your concern. Could you please specify why you think Education about the holocaust and The Holocaust in curricula are duplicates? Curricula is a "key component" of Education about the Holocaust, and that is articulated in the article. These articles were created as part of a project that uses Wikipedia's and UNESCO's open license/open access policies to create and improve articles. If you have any doubts as to the legitimacy of these articles, Genocide education included, please consult the cited publications. If you have any questions about the project, please consult John Cummings. Thank you. (A.mart82)

Hi, can I request nothing is 'speedied'. I don't agree they are the same subject but I don't pretend to have enough in depth knowledge of the subject to know whether it is suitable to merge this article into another or to leave as it is. --John Cummings (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge with Education about the holocaust. Per Wikipedia:Article size, there's no need to have a separate article on this subtopic. The style is somewhat prolix and underreferenced and could be edited down. Although the articles don't do a very good job of establishing notability, I don't think the notability of the topic is in question as it regularly comes up in newspapers etc. But I don't think education and curricula are separate topics, even though the articles have different focuses (like having articles on restaurant food and restaurant menus.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per previous. This has the feel of a not very good academic essay, not an encyclopedic article. Inevitably each country will do this differently, so that I am not sure that a worldwide synthesis is useful to have. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a large expansion of Education about the holocaust#The Holocaust in curricula and textbooks - and is not the same thing. Holocaust education is much-much broader than just school curriculum - and includes museums, documentaries, films, etc. This not short (and much expanded) article focuses on formal instruction in a school setting. "Education about the holocaust" isn't about Education in the sense of the education system - but encompasses all community outreach efforts.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Karl Henze

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link. The best is one para entry in Hitler's Stuka Squadron but it's insufficient, and the rest are passing mentions. Franz Kurowski's Luftwaffe Aces is non RS. No de.Wiki article. Successful completion of missions (# of sorties flown) is not part of SOLDIER.

Per the outcome of the discussion on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

In this case, the redirect has been challenged with the rationale that the subject "commanded one of the first bomber wings of the Bundesluftwaffe". No sources have been offered, while command of a wing in peacetime does not meet SOLDIER's criterion of "commanding a significant number of troops in battle". Significant RS coverage on this career in the German Air Force is not found either: link; Kurowski again (Denied Paternity: Wehrmacht Officers Created the Bundeswerh) is non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Which references would be sufficient for a stand-alone article? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is probably only one that focuses on him specifically, but his war service seems to have him mentioned, by my count, in at least 40 books (I stopped counting, probably a lot more than that. That's just books, I didn't check articles at all). Considering *also* he is Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, and he flew like 1000(!) sorties or something, I think all up, this warrants at least a short page for him in Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves. That means he essentially won it twice. Although its ubiquity means the Knight's Cross cannot be considered the highest award, it is certainly important enough to be notable if won more than once. It is certainly on a par with an American winning the DSC twice or a Briton winning the DSO twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SOLDIER does not apply in this case. Only the awards for valour are covered by SOLDIER #1, not for meritorious service / successful completion of missions. In any case, SOLIDER is just an essay and is thus subordinate to GNG. We should make sure that Karl Henze has been a subject of significant coverage in independent RS before keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if the distinction did matter, you appear to be making an unsupported assumption as to what his Knight's Crosses were awarded for. As far as I'm concerned, it's covered by WP:SOLDIER and that, despite "only" being an essay, is generally recognised as the notability standard for military biographies. In any case, I think there's a very good case for also assuming the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Another bio where one would think given the high award of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and missions flown, one could expand the article with greater detail (cited to RS sources). I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots but I would think someone could expand the article accordingly. It is bare-bones. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Henze did not receive his awards and flew over 1,000 combat missions. Rather he received the KC because he completed 430 combat missions and earned the Oakleaves because he completed 1,000 combat missions. Yet Wikipedia articles do not honor people for a certain number of combat missions completed, but reflect significant coverage by RS sources. Apart from the KC directories the usual suspects here are notorious militaria writer Franz Kurowski with Verleugnete Vaterschaft. Wehrmachtsoffiziere schufen die Bundeswehr (2000) and former Luftwaffe propagandist George Brütting with Das waren die Stuka Asse. There are also a few lines on him in Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Bomber Aces (2001), a militaria book devoid of any notes and featuring a very small bibliography. So you might put together a career summary as for nearly any other KC recipient, but I do not consider that significant coverage by RS. Bomber pilots did not receive as much as attention as fighter pilots, Hans-Ulrich Rudel being the most notable exception, and neither did Henze.--Assayer (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment -- The keep arguments at this AfD are along the lines of WP:ITSNOTABLE and / or "coverage exists". These are not valid deletion discussion arguments and I believe that they should be discounted. Furthermore, such interpretations of SOLDIER is not consistent with the close of the discussion regarding the "Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners": link, which showed that for a high proportion of Knight's Cross winners, irrespective of grade, significant RS coverage does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. He meets WP:SOLDIER 5 as a Gruppenkommandeur of a unit that specifically saw military action (this is the same level as the Group, which is specifically cited in criterion 5 of SOLDIER). I have the impression that most of the Delete contributors have either not read the article under discussion, or WP:SOLDIER, clearly enough: we should not be having this debate. The oak leaves, in this case, are a complete red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is not much to read about Karl Hanke. Criterion 5 of WP:SOLDIER as such does not presume notability. Rather it is but one criterion to presume that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify as notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. To mention Hanke in a list, is exactly what is being proposed, because the coverage in RS is anything but broad.--Assayer (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I believe the last "Keep" vote to be a misinterpretation of SOLDIER #5, which requires a command of
  • "a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)."
The subject commanded a sub-unit of the Sturzkampfgeschwader 77, being a Gruppenkommandeur. The commander of a wing would be a Kommodor. The subject under discussion topped out as a Major / sub-unit commander in the Luftwaffe; it's a far cry of what SOLDIER requires. In any case, SOLDIER is just an essay and SIGCOV has not been presented by any of the keep voters. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lika Ceni

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • http://www.visit-montenegro.com/main-cities/ulcinj/ulcinj-history/
link to establish notibility. please do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talkcontribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the subject mentioned in several Montenegro travel books as Lika Celi, but always as a passing reference to him and Ali Hodža, the Karamindžoja brothers, and sometimes Uluč Alija. I am not finding any detailed coverage of any of them, but if it is in Cyrilic, I doubt my search would turn it up. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is also this - [16] which is not a guidebook. Various Cyrillic, Turkish (part of the Ottoman empire back then), and other language sources - with use of possible alternative spellings is probably required for a serious search.Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I added some information from a couple of the travel guides so there are at least some references to satisfy verifiability and notability. I don't really like relying on travel guides as historical sources, but given that other sources are likely not available in English and, in the spirit of expanding world coverage, I'm leaning toward keep in the hopes that future editors with more facility in the appropriate languages can expand this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - following improvement. May be a mythical figure - but he is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment http://montenegrina.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Milenko-Ratkovic-Gusarska-epopeja.pdf; another link to establish notibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talkcontribs) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving



Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=782782016"
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