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

Civil societarianism

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

Quoted, this gets under a hundred GHits, including about a dozen Wikipedia pages in which it's linked. I can't find any evidence that this is a significant concept. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not significant in the literature. Neutralitytalk 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - results for a search at google scholar seem to imply some significance in the literature, but it feels like it would be a better fit at wiktionary, so maybe transwiki, but I don't know if it satisfies policies over there. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor of law and policy

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

We don't accept articles on university "programs" without real evidence of that program's notability. KDS4444 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Post-tech

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

WP:NEO. Term does not appear to be in common use. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I agree this is a non-notable neologism, not clearly defined in any sources I can see. Change to weak delete, see below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm new here, so I don't know the exact rules about the deletion of articles. However, I do see a definition in this ON/OFF book which is as a PHD thesis a scientific piece of work and a good summary of the current debate.[1] Further, it's mentioned in the DIE ZEIT article[2] (it's the German NYT) which did apparently run as the main article of the issue. Even it's not mentioned widely over the web, it's mentioned by very reliable sources. Can concepts become part of Wikipedia only once they are regularly used? Mljakubowski (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mljakubowski: I cannot speak for the German newspaper usage, but the book you found does indeed define it (in the future rather than commercial bookseller please link to page view on Google Books if possible, like this: Sarah Genner (3 January 2017). ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet. vdf Hochschulverlag AG. pp. 163–. ISBN 978-3-7281-3799-9. ). The source of their definition seems to be [1], a German language document on whose reliability again I cannot comment. That's a good start, but please read WP:NEO and WP:GNG. For new terms we need more than 1-2 sources, a more widespread use would help. If you can show this term used in let's say 5 or so more reliable sources, preferably English (so I can read them), I'd be ready to change my vote to keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Genner, Sarah (3 January 2017). ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet. vdf Hochschulvlg. ISBN 3728137995. 
  2. ^ Jürgen von Rutenberg. "ZEITmagazin International, No 2, Fall-Winter 2015 (printed), German version online available". ZEITmagazin International. Retrieved 24 March 2017. 


Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Generation Snowflake

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

Wow I really don't know what to say. This article is just many reasons that Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a source. This article is complete trash just because many people have coined the phrase doesn't mean that it's the name of an actual generation or that it should have it's own article. The phrase is usually used by people who are actually so called "Snowflakes" calling others who don't agree with them "Snowflakes". This article should be Deleted I can't believe it's been nominated twice already it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It's not a real generation 10, 20 years down the road this isn't a term people will use. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It has not been resolved, there is no consensus that the current state of the article is acceptable, and the "survived with flying colours" is pure inflammatory rhetoric by an editor who has consistently displayed bad faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term (Generation Snowflake) seems much used and sources are sound. WP: I don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion.Xxanthippe (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete Allsportsfan's "words fail me" reaction is entirely understandable. The same people keep popping up every time the article is nominated. The fact is the article was irredeemably biased from the beginning, and any attempts to remove that bias have been resisted. Even attempts to move it to Snowflake (slang) or Snowflake (pejorative) have been resisted; this would at least give the article a chance to be an article about a slang term rather than a "kids these days" attack piece. It needs WP:TNT. The sources are mostly garbage too, just trashy op-eds and polemic pieces. In particular the pieces by Michelle Malkin and a nobody called Eleanor Halls who writes fluff pieces for GQ should not be cited as sources. Let's sort this crap out once and for all, it is entirely unacceptable that the article should be retained in its current blatantly POV, unencyclopedic state. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The references included with the article include multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage,and widespread use, satisfying general notability and WP:NEO. It was kept twice in recent months, and instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources continue to appear. Sorry if the term offends some editors. Wikipedia is not intended to be a safe space. Edison (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe the article should contain a trigger warning to alert people of delicate disposition that it might cause offense to them? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
I don't find it offensive I find it ridiculous because usually the people who use the term are actually so called Snowflakes themselves. Anyways it does not belong on wikipedia because it's a term that was made up by somebody and will lose it's meaning someday. It's not notable and the sources in the article are weak and opinion pieces.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Get that line from Breitbart did you? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not know what Breibart is. I find your edit summary offensive and WP:Uncivil. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
Too bad. It was a fair and accurate description of your comment. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep because this article was Kept at AfD in November 2016, and again in December 2016, it is far too soon for a do-over. Also, it passes WP:NEO with secondary WP:RS considering the origin and usage. A good deal of sentiment both in hits that pop up in searches and in these 3 COUNT THEM 3 AfDs in less than 6 months amount to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and I get why given that it is a pejorative. But do sources support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is from the WP:NEO page: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Not to mention the sources are mostly opinion pieces that aren't reliable sources.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per prior discussions, and a gentle WP:TROUT for the nominator… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 11:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Illth

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

Ultimately, this is a dictionary definition. An amusing conceit but requires the confusion of a homphone. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a major philosophical concept. Production can result in an actual reduction in net material wealth. You might think it wholly foolish, but since it exists it needs to be recorded.--GwydionM (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • keep . Easy to verify used in numerous books, hence the article is expandable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
All articles are expandable, some are expandable dictionary definitions. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is more than a definition. (And damn you, Arial font!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tempted to say that it should be at a lowercase title. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

List of words in English with tripled letters

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

WP:NOTDIC indiscriminate list, unsourced, as is, this is not useful for anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't look like an encyclopedic topic and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -With no claim as to why this concept is notable and no sources discussing it, this is nothing but an indiscriminate list of trivia. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is very basic, reads like trivia and offers no evidence of notability unlike List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Dunarc (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

List of useful Unicode symbols

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

This is an entirely subjective list, reflecting the article creator's ideas of which Unicode symbols are useful. All Unicode symbols are useful to somebody or they would not have been added to the Unicode Standard, and there are no reliable sources for deciding which symbols are useful enough to be included in a list of useful characters. This sort of arbitrary and subjective list is fine on someone's personal website or blog, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:AtErik1. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a subjective selection that duplicates material already covered in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has a lot of coverage of Unicode, as well as links to all the codepages in Wikibooks. Homoglyphs are already covered, e.g. Duplicate characters in Unicode. Essays and personal picks don't belong in what's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia.
As mentioned, the definition of "useful" is unclear - is this any more useful than the content it duplicates? If it means useful to everybody in the world, then the selection is suspect. If it's specifically useful to Wikipedia editors, then in theory it could be moved to the Help namespace, but pages like Help:Special characters already exist and are more relevant. It maybe also falls foul of WP:NOTHOWTO, as a manual on how to create confusing user names. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically, this is an indiscriminate list based on the article creator's personal opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - We already have List_of_Unicode_characters. If this is to be kept, it perhaps could be renamed to a more specific category of characters and modified consequently. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. I appreciate the effort that has been put into this. Organizing symbols by function or use is more helpful to many than our more common organization by Unicode blocks. wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps merge this with Unicode symbols to List of Unicode symbols. Unicode symbols are a subset of Unicode characters; see Universal Character Set characters § Categories. I'd hate to delete this, while keeping the currently hacked-up Unicode symbols, where Unicode symbols § Symbol Block Table was copied without attribution from List of Unicode characters § Unicode symbols. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that this article has now been expanded to include not only Unicode symbols but also any random characters that the editor thinks are interesting, including various ligatured Latin letters and CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) ideographs that coincidentally vaguely resemble Latin letters. So the article is no longer a list of symbols, but is an arbitrary list of Unicode characters that one particular editor finds interesting. There is still not a single reference or indication why this is a notable list. BabelStone (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, it does seem to be jumping the shark now. @AtErik1: you should pause your work on this, and discuss your rationale and strategy with us here. Don't ignore this discussion, as you would be headed for disappointment as the consensus is obviously leaning towards deleting all your work. wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete if something is written in a way it is explicitly useful for readers, it's often written like a guide which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • HEY why is there no notice posted on User talk:AtErik1? wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, it appears that it has not yet been posted to the relevant sourcedeletion sorting list(s) either (or at least, I don't see the related notices). PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Two deletion sorting lists were just notified. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
User_talk:AtErik1 Notified. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Hi. I can see some users given complain on using the "useful", then please change page title to what it should be renamed into. My objectives are to include many LIGATURES & HOMOGLYPHS & frequently used Unicodes under one page, which looks like latin/english characters, so its easy to find quickly, and if needed use (copy-paste) in various other pages, articles, apps, messaging, mobile-devices, etc. So page title can have such WORDs, it can be "List of latin look-alike Unicode ligatures, homoglyphs". It will include more related Unicode glyphs, so page title can/need-to/may reflect those aspects. I have seen other pages in wiki with only few (under 5) ligatures (listed in discussed-page's SeeAlso), not under discussion for delete! I have already added more alternate words in page for "useful" so that its not undermining usefulness of Unicode's vast & useful code-points collection, for many people from many localities. This list can point into other detail/dedicated pages on ligatures, homoglyphs, frequently used blocks, so that users can find more related or nearby UCS, just like any other "List..." in wikipedia. -- AtErik1 20:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtErik1 (talkcontribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, unprincipled and utterly non-systematic collection, largely on completely idiosyncratic criteria (CJK characters that happen to look similar to Latin characters, really?) Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of random trivia. Fut.Perf. 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamo-Leftism

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

Lack of notability. TheDracologist (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Islamo-Leftist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "islamo-gauchiste" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "islamo-gauchisme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject seems to be covered in multiple reliable sources. Why would it lack notability? Am I missing something? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism. There are extremely few mentions of it in reliable sources, and insufficient detail to write a neutral article. Even worse, the term has been used by different writers with different meanings. These range from a "fringe" Trotskyist theory (that is fringe even among Trotskyists) that Islamists play a progressive role in resisting imperialism to a neo-fascist conspiracy theory that mainstream politicians (who by fascist standards are leftists) secretly take their orders from the ayatollahs. Rather than enlighten, this brief article is just a slogan. It attempts to conflate progressive politics with Islamic extremism without explaining why. TFD (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per TFD. Is Islamo-Leftism a real philosophy or a nasty epithet with which to tar one's political opponents? After reading this article many times, I couldn't tell you. The various "sources" that use the phrase don't appear to agree with one another about what it is. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftists do indeed describe the term as an epithet. That too can be reliably sourced:
  • "Islamo-Gauchisme Decrypted" August 2, 2016, Laurent Bouvet (Professor of Political Science at the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.) In this interview, he breaks the code behind the use of the term, islamo-gauchisme.[2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete NEO is hte only policy I know regarding this. L3X1 (distant write) 21:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Except Badiou never used the term. Buckner spent exactly one paragraph discussing the concept and a novelist's use of the term is only significant if secondary sources mention it. TFD (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just checked the Badiou book cited in the article, Badiou DOESNOTLIKE this term, but he does use it as an example of bad-mouthing Muslims. He asserts that the phrase Islamo-leftist "originates with the police." Here: [3]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just sourced Michel Houellebecq's use of "Islamo-Leftism" in Submission to the Tom Brass essay Houellebecq, Anthropologist? I was reading Submission when I created this article two years ago. I came across this phrase, and wondered whether Houllebecq had coined it. I searched, and found quite a number of notable intellectuals using the phrase, so I created this article. A look at the talk page will show that quite a number of editors JUSTDIDNTLIKEIT then, but acknowledged that the soruces are solid, and did not take it to AFD. I see that quite a few WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now. Searches in French and English - try gBook searches on the term in both - French and English - will be will persuade objective editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • While he's hardly a reliable source, here is the redoubtable Shlomo Sand on Islamo-leftists:[5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If added, Sand's blog post would easily be the most reliable source in the whole article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced article plenty of sources especially in French.Meets WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete LOL History repeats itself as farce: this is a Judeo-Bolshevism 2.0, but far less WP:NOTABLE than the original. The only adequately sourced section is Islamo-Leftism#History_of_term, which rubbishes the concept. I just checked the most imposing looking sources for kicks: The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, Princeton Uni Press(p. 25). This source tries to prove the existence of "Islamo-Leftism" with three footnotes: first one is about crazed hired-gun Carlos the Jackal; second is an obscure reference to a some Shiite "thinker" who allegedly mixed Islam with a "Marxist" and secular notion of history, somehow (no further elaboration is provided); the third footnote offers an abstract definition of Trotskyist entryism (footnote says nothing about Islam), and yet it is used in support of the author's specific allegations that Trotskyists had a strategy of embedding themselves in Islamist movements. Other source used here include a novel by Michel Houellebecq, together with some incomprehensible literary criticism of it. Fiction is not RS. This is the most retarded article I've ever come across on Wikipedia. All that's missing is a reference to "Leftist" Barack Obama being the "founder of ISIS". I appreciate humor though, so maybe my vote should have been "Keep LOL". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please stop being obtuse. I don't like the theory of Judeo-Bolshevism either, but it is clearly notable by virtue of being discussed in numerous carefully-documented and non-fictional studies. This on the other hand is clear WP:NEO. The notability of Judeo-Bolshevism does not hinge on rants by philosopher Othmar Spann or the poet Ezra Pound, regardless of which academic Jew-hating institution printed them at the time. The sourcing here is skimpy indeed, with several basically saying: "WTF is this shit?" Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It is notable because of sources like this: [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is already an article on "Regressive Left", and Islamo-Leftism appears to be an obscure neologism for the same thing. A fewof the sources in this article can be potentially be merged into "Regressive Left", which is the more notable EL term for w:fr:Islamo-gauchisme . Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is a search on this term + Valls (Prime Minister of France until last year) [7]. I really don't think you can dismiss this term as "obscure." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - covered by plenty of reliable sources. The reasoning for this AfD nom is weak at best.. Probably non existing considering the three word rationale. Drive-by? This article covers WP:NEO as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
yes, Nom is a new editor who hung similar drive-by tags on maybe a dozen pages, none of which looked likely to be deleted. Seems to have been acting in good faith, appeared to be just new and over-enthusiastic.
Note also that User:MShabazz, who argued for delete above, has previously edited the article, but had not tagged it for sourcing or notability, let alone brought it to AfD until that newbie did. He gives a weak, highly POV argument for deletion - the sources defining the term do not disagree is any substantive way. Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub, but the fact that intellectuals who DONOTLIKEIT nevertheless discuss it at some length supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. E.M. Gregory, please re-read and try to follow WP:BLUDGEON. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub" Of course you yourself are not politically motivated in any way, unlike those "Leftists." Thanks for the laugh. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – article appears to satisfy WP:NEO and meets WP:GNG. Article is along the line of Alt-right and other similar articles. Nomination is weak.  {MordeKyle  22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
People self-identify as "alt-right". Islamo-Leftism appears to be little more than an epithet. So not really comparable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That is wholly irrelevant.  {MordeKyle  00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
So why did you bring it up? Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant that its an epithet. I'm sure some alt-right type people think that term used for them is an epithet as well. The point being, both are a name of a sub group of the political party. Good luck going forward.  {MordeKyle  19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Article is along the line of Alt-right" My point was that it's not. "Alt-right" was coined by ... the "Alt-Right" — it is not an epithet in any way shape or form. Alt-right refers to an actual political movement that has been discussed at length in hundreds of RS. "Islamo-Leftism" more "along the lines of" Latte Liberal (the latter term being far more WP:NOTABLE). Note that both epithets have very close synonyms: Regressive Left and Champagne socialist, respectively. Both articles already exist, and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to a lack of decent sourcing — the article is forced (as predicted by WP:NEO) into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The almost all of the sources in "Examples" section, do NOT actually use the term Islamo-Leftism. This is like starting an article titled "Dirty Commies", and then using Peat Bog Soldiers as an example of the relationship between Communists and dirt. To summarize the issues: WP:NOTNEO; WP:NOTDICT; WP:OR; WP:NOTABLE. The very few WP:RS's that discuss it (like Liberation) aren't even sure it is a real thing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment After questioning of the sources, some editors have presented a use in a single sentence in one book, a footnote or two in another, etc. In order to write accurate and balanced articles we need reliable secondary sources that describe the topic in full. Certainly a scholar can look for all the references "islamo-leftism," determine what they meant, how popular the term is, whether there are alternative names, whether the term means different things, whether it is used by left or right, mainstream or fringe, whether it is politically correct etc. But until that is done, we can only rely on the original research of editors. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and until adequate sources are available it is more appropriate to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This subject for sure is not fringe, there are considerable amount of published (particularly in French) material on the topic. On the other hand, I think we might be finding a better title than Islamo-Leftism. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thing is, Islamo-Leftism the neologism is just part of the broader subject (and more notable) in many political spheres (one example is Turkey, but there are plenty). An article on the neologism restricts the subject considerably to a tabloid level. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes but those are opinions and interpretation of rules which your opponents above will certainly disagree with. There is a reason why the neologism is distinctly covered in a restrictif circle in the European French speaking world, it does not resist its broather context lets say of the Turkish or Kurdish leftist population of Germany (someone could be accused of original research by even suggesting it). Such an article isn’t stable in time because it was arbitrarily scalped to follow a neologism which either way could be muting for all we know. Maintaining the stance imposed by its title require considerable amount of resources due to its instability generating conflicts and edit warring. We should be concentrating on content rather than forms here, and for the long term I don't see any other options than relabeling it with a more appropriate title. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yahya Talatin: Do you want to help me take this page in that direction, perhaps by adding sections on Turkish political coalitions/movements linked as I did for the short-lived Islamo-Leftist political party in Belgium?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not for convictions contribute considerably (particularly in conflict generating articles) in name-space anymore. I can however help you in talkpages in providing sources, materials and criticism and it would be up to you and others to settle what goes or doesn't go where and why. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that in response, I have started an "Examples" seciton. the Iranian example is supported by scholars using the term "Islamo-Leftism." The Belgian and Palestinian are formal, if shot-lived, political coalitions formed between avowed Marxist political movements and avowed Islamist political movements. Article will, of course, either develop in the direction suggested by User:Yahya Talatin, or retreat to a narrower interpretation of WP:WORDISSUBJECT; I have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right that the sources in the Iran section do use the term to refer to a group like People's Mujahedin of Iran, but that is quite different from the way the term is used in the rest of the article. Iran's "Islamo-Leftist" groups were not the products of any "Red-Green" alliances, but were merely characterized by ideologies that combined Socialism and Nationalism with appeals to Islam (like the FLN in Algeria). There was a de facto red-green "alliance" between Tudeh and Khomeinism in the sense that they did not see each other as enemies during the Iranian Revolution. So if you can find an RS that calls it "Islamo-Leftism", it might fit in with rest of the article. But at the moment, all you are actually doing is creating a COATRACK article about the "relationship between Islam and Leftism," because the term "Islamo-Leftism" is both hopelessly vague and rarely used. Don't you see this as problematic? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftists in Iran formally supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution; Leftists in Europe, particularly in France supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution. An enormous literature exists on this particular Islamo-Leftist alliance, some of which uses this phrase retrospectively (phrase was not coined until ~ 20 years after the Khomeini's revolution.) Just fyi, many phenomenon exist decades or centuries before a word for them is coined, see: bureaucracy, which the Byzantine Empire had even before Max Weber.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: Chronology has nothing to do with it. My point was that: (a) your sources are referring to disparate phenomena when they use "Islamo-Leftism"; (b) The stuff about Palestine and Belgium is OR in that none of the sources use the term at all. (On Europe and Iran: The most prominent defender of Khomeini's revolution (Khomeneism proper, not the broad anti-Shah revolution) in Europe was Michel Foucault, who an anti-Marxist and an anti-Communist at the time. Marxists and Socialists around the world generally hated Khomeini after he assumed power.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guccisamsclub, I think (opinions aside) it would be relevant if you could comment on the way the material could be addressed. Would you be accepting relabeling the article? What conditions would you be setting? How the content (not the form) survives is what interest me. A broader article which covers left and Islam would be in my opinion a good approach. Most similar conflicts are due to forms which require inclusions and exclusion criteria specific to editors and their different backgrounds. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi. Here's the problem: a hypothetical article that explicitly (with title change) covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left clearly fails WP:SCOPE. That's why there are no articles about overlaps between two huge categories, like Jews and Leftism or even Jews and Bolshevism (though Jewish Left is a legit topic — note the difference in scope). Currently, this article covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left implicitly (in the examples section), creating a poorly-scoped WP:COATRACK of an article, wherein editors tack on "examples" of "Islamo-Leftism" via WP:OR. This is just unambiguously wrong, no less wrong than someone trying to tack on — Metapedia-style — "real-world examples" of the relationship between Jews and Bolsheviks to the Judeo-Bolshevism article. So the only possible option seems to be to list the various usages of the term. The problem here is that the term is typically used as a vague shorthand for different kinds of overlaps between Islam and the Left (depending on who's using it, and in which cultural context). But here you come up against WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what RS say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The fact that French politician Manuel Valls has used this as a polemical shorthand for some Western Leftists' sympathies with Islam, while a couple of English-speaking scholars have used it as a descriptive shorthand (for the ideology of certain political groups in Iran like the People's Mujahedin of Iran) does not speak well for its encyclopedic value. All this simply demonstrates the term's underlying shallowness and inconsistency. It's just a one of thousands of multipurpose hyphenated shorthands, which typically fail WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Based on the above, I think the article should be deleted, but if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there is sufficient coverage in sources, and not only in news sources, but in books, such as here, here, here,here, here, here, . My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This seems like a random google search, with little regard for what the term represents. The meaning is not consistent across your sources and it is also relatively shallow. Novels are not RS, and half the sources you cited are already in the article. Since wikipedia articles are not aggregators of google search results, I'd like see how you'd actually go about integrating these sources into the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, this is not simply a google search, but links to specific sources. No, if anyone cares to look at these books, there is essentially only one meaning, and the sources can be used on this page. Note that the books are secondary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Your first source refers to a Trotskyist theory that Islam would become "the spearhead of a new insurrection...against global capitalism." Your second source refers to left-wing supporters of the Ayatollah such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). Your third source refers to "the partnership between leftists and Islamists." Those are three entirely different meanings. TFD (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
TFD: I basically agree, but #2 refers to People's Mujahedin of Iran who fought against the Ayatollahs for decades, so it's totally and irreconcilably different from the others. MVBW: #5 is WP:FICTION; #1, #4 are both Bruckner's polemical essays, and the idea that "Islamist Revolution" is a significant tenet of modern Trotskyism is WP:FRINGE (maybe there's a tiny sect with a dozen members that actually believes something approaching this); #6 is a brief and offhanded dismissal of the term; #3 is a brief mention. You need sources that actually try to flesh out the term (that's a policy requirement(!)—see WP:NEO, usage is not enough). The only source you've offered that meets this requirement is Bruckner's polemic. I suppose that, after you add the Liberation source, one could have an excuse for an article, but the article will be very short, uninformative and WP:FRINGE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert, but I think the meaning of the expression is essentially the same in all sources, namely, fusion between the left and religious radicalism - as was said here. OK, let's check another RS. It tells:
"Bruckner doesn't see the problem as French-only, noting that Islamo-Leftism emanated from the British Socialist Workers Trotskyites and fanned out Europe-wide. They saw Islam as a process to "spearhead a new insurrection in the name of the oppressed". To the Left Wing intellectual, who no longer knows how to understand the world and whose Communist gods have all died, there is no more hope. Their current focus now is the devil incarnate – the US and its pariah Israel.
I do not see the People's Mujahedin of Iran as something entirely different. They are actual Islamic leftists in flesh, which only makes this subject (as opposed to merely a neologism) even more interesting and notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Under the first definition, the ayatollahs and the MEK are part of the Islamo-leftist narrative, but neither the Trotskyists, the ayatollahs or the MEK are Islamo-leftists, since Islamo-leftism is a left-wing theory about Islam, not a political group. Under the second definition, neither the Trotskists or the ayatollahs are islamo-leftists, but the MEK are. Under the third definition, all of them are islamo-leftists, but only when the Islamic groups are working with the Trotskyists. (Note: I realize the MEK oppose the ayatollahs, but the author mentions them when they supported them.) If you think there should be an article about actual Islamic leftists in the flesh, there already is. (See Islamic socialism.) As someone who thinks left-wing refers to anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump, you should appreciate the more precise term of "socialism." TFD (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is not RS, and you just quoted an unscholarly and bombastic review of Brucker's book. Too much hinges on Bruckner, himself a bombastic polemicist who has no expertise on either Islam or Socialism. TFD has done a very good job describing the obscene category errors. Bruckner's usage designates narrative about the Left and Islam. Hunter 's usage (Iran scholar) designates specific political parties which had, as a matter of historical fact, explicitly combined Socialism with appeals to Islam. Likewise, some political philosophers and ideologues have written about Judeo-Bolshevism, while professional historians have written about the Bund. Both are ostensibly about the "fusion of Jewishness and radical Leftism", but only the latter refers to definite political movement. They are NOT the same thing, either politically or scientifically. And for the record, saying that MEK are "radical Islamists" and that the Trotskyists are Islamisms' fifth-columnists is WP:FRINGE (if you disagree, try inserting this stuff into the relevant articles and see how fast it gets reverted). Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Guccisamsclub Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You have used a series of arguments, meeting opinions that you DONTLIKE with mockery and by calling editors who disagree with you "obtuse." When a point you make is refuted, you introduce new objections. You are so set in your dislike of the idea of an Islamo-leftist alliance, that you seem unable to WP:LISTEN to fellow editors. Note that none of us is obliged to WP:SATISFY all of your ideas of what this article should be. Articles evolve under consensus and the work of multiple editors, as this one may. At present, however, WP:WORDISSUBJECT and you should put down your WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory, considering that you have made the most edits to this page, it is likely you who is bludgeoning the process. Why not take your own advice? There's no need to refute every comment on this page. Multiple times. (But I know you will reply to this because you seem unable not to get the last word in.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, pot meets kettle. The personal attack here are largely come from you (the false accusations above are yet another example). Right after I cast my vote, outlining several reasons for why the article may be unencyclopedic, you immediately dismissed it nothing more than IJUSTDONTLIKE, without addressing most (if any) of my substantive points. That's why I said "don't be obtuse" (linking "obtuse" to WP:LISTEN). You later said that my argument was nothing more than politically-motivated ("leftist") IJUSTDONTLIKE-ism. You have taken a similar tack in responding to the arguments of other editors. That's not a "refutation". In point of fact, I actually WP:LISTENED to and though about the points brought up by others, and think my comments fully bear that out. I have my doubts about whether you've done that. That's why my replies do not consist of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. This does not mean that my points have been "refuted": debates develop, unlike unlike monologues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As written on the page, Hunter classifies the People's Mujahedin of Iran an Islamo-leftist organization.[15] I can't check the source (the book), but assuming good faith here, this is actually a proof (in WP:RS sense) that People's Mujahedin of Iran belong to the subject of "Islamo-leftism". My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have now linked to 3 of the 4 books in which Shireen Hunter discusses the Islamo-Leftist alliance in the Iranian Revolution, and added a passage form one of these books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for significantly improving this page and the sourcing [9]! Now I do not have any doubts that the page should be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory:*Can you please share a direct quote from Hunter? AFAIK, Hunter describes some Iranian groups as because Islamo-leftists because they had (opportunistically or otherwise) incorporated Islamic ideas into their Leftist ideology (and vice versa), not because they were in a temporary "alliance" with Khomeinism (they actually took up arms against it). That's why Hunter makes a distinction between Islamists, Islamo-Leftists, and the secular Left. If Islamo-Leftism refers to taking part in a revolution where Islamism played a major role, then they would all be "Islamo-Leftists", including Tudeh (which I've never heard described as "Islamo" anything). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I think a good approach would be that those (particularly Guccisamsclub) who believe the article should be deleted propose an alternative which would maintain the information somehow or somewhere for those who think the information should go somewhere. I am under the impression that too much resources is put into the form rather than content here. I personally believe that in anything as long as there is just one opponnent it means that it isn’t yet stable. I do not adhere to the majority rule but the one of a true consensus.
Guccisamsclub, since the vote isn't achieving consensus (by brute numbers of votes), it would be constructive to propose an alternative which would be more acceptable for you. The wrong approach would be that everyone attempts to enforce their number 1 choice… a solution would be that each present a second alternative… their number two (and search for an overlap). A more heleocentric approach which places at the center the concensus (monotheistic-like) rather than our own personal opinions (polytheistic-like). I do realize however that this would technically go against the purpouses of a ‘’request for deletion’’ vote. This is in my opinion the only possible option in the long term. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yahya Talatin: I'll just quote myself: " if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both)."Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (Polemical usage refers to Bruckner, descriptive usage refers to Hunter). There is no consensus that they are talking about the same thing at all when they use the term. At the moment, only TFD and myself have actually tried to argue this point; others have merely asserted that they are the same without much evidence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added additional search-bars (top of page) to assist editors in seeing the scope of this WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Note that Wikipedia's established rules and procedures do not include reaching a compromise solution that satisfies every opinion voiced. I hope to have time later this week to improve article using sources in English, French and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems well referenced and fairly well written. I see no reason to delete this. The bizarrely enthusiastic argument taking place here only serves to highlight interest in the subject and should probably be taken to the talk page. Mortee (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  • Note that the relisting was done by a relatively inexperienced editor (User:J9476) whose talk page contains requests from fellow editors to cease closing and/or relisting AfD discussions until he gains more experience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Romanagari

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

Suggesting deletion since original research and promotional purpose without any citation.IMO Other articles are already available on en wikipedia to take care of essential aspects of this article.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Very selective merge to Devanagari transliteration; there don't appear to be any references, but some of the information may be useful. I note that User:Pare Mo suggested this merge in April 2016, but no discussion came from it. 'Devanagari transliteration' may need better sources, but it does have 21 footnotes and a mess of external links. Merging to Devanagari might make the section unbalanced. Cnilep (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems some one else earlier tried to nominate article for deletion but some one else removed that notice without citing any reason.
Mahitgar (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
In principle anyone who objects to deletion can remove a {{Proposed deletion}} tag. The {{Article for deletion}} tag initiates a discussion like this one, and it should not be removed until the discussion runs its course. But of course best practice is to provide at least an edit summary when removing a PROD. The editor who removed that one appears to be an indefinitely blocked sock puppet. Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While Google just gives <1000 hits, I notice the term is used in some books decades old ([10]). Few low quality hits on Google Scholar ([11]). News coverage at [12], through that newspaper is hardly quality. I am not sure if this is a notable concept, two notable topics merged into one, or just some (sic!) noise, since I am not a linguist. However, given the pre-Internet reference, the article claims "a slang word coined by bloggers", and the general poorly referenced state of the article, I think this may require WP:TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Prodded articles


History

Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus

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

This name first came to my attention some months ago when I was working on List of Roman Consuls: none of my sources could confirm this person's existence. Despite a search on Google, I have been unable to find any reliable source that mentions him. The only original source which appears to even mention this person is a genealogical website which appears to be dodgy to me. In response to a query I left on the talk page last November, Mikythos checked the two sources cited in the article, & neither mention Vestinus. I'm guessing that the original editor took the information from a website (perhaps the one I mention) & directly cited the sources provided there without checking them first. A good-faith article creation. However, at best this person is a phantom & at worst an inadvertent hoax. (P.S. I checked, & none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion appear to apply in this case.) llywrch (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the cited sources don't support the claims, the article is unsourced with the likely supposition of a hoax. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Titus Sextius Lateranus (consul 154). Seems to be a mix of that individual (the long version of Titus Sextius Lateranus' name described on that page and in Mennen includes "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus"), and his father. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: Okay, now I can see where that name came from originally: someone with a hazy grasp of polyonomous names (which was a typical practice in the 2nd century AD Roman Empire; T. Sexius Lateranus' full name is an example of that) assumed L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus was the father of the consul of 154, made up the rest of the material, & put it up on the Internet somewhere where it was found & used in the Wikipedia article. Just one more example why I've become more conservative about accepting information I find -- even from experts. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to T. Sextius Lateranus. It could be interpreted as a mistake for the consul, but polyonymous Roman nomenclatures tended to accumulate by adding the names of maternal ancestors, so there probably was a grandfather or great-grandfather with this name. A couple of other individuals with the combination "Volusius Torquatus" show up in the EDCS database. Whether there'll ever be any direct evidence of this particular person other than the survival of his name in the consul's nomenclature is uncertain, but not impossible. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Slobodan Milošević and the educational system in Kosovo

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

Article is massive copyviolation from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1572/1/bachei1.pdf Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:TNT as unsalvageable propaganda. I don't actually see a copyright violation involving text lifted without change. I wish in a way there was! What I see is a great deal of OR synthesis claimed to derive from two sources. There appears to be a massive amount pov wording, distorting significantly the content of those two sources for pov effect. For example, "...some concessions were made shortly thereafter. In 1969, subsidiary branches of the University of Belgrade in Pristina were converted into the University of Pristina." is in the text and is cited, and implies a "concession" that was nothing beyond a change of signage. However, the cited source says "subsidiary institutions of the University of Belgrade" were "transformed and expanded". That source is also specific that the demand was "clearly linked to separatist politics" - information the article conveniently (for its pov) omits. The degree of source distortion is revealed by the source's content (on p286) that the University of Pristina "subsequently played a prominent role in the Albanianisation of Kosovo’s political, administrative and security apparatuses" being rendered distorted and propagandized in the text as "played a pivotal role in the fight against Serbinisation". This sort of distortion is everywhere throughout the text to the extend that I think it is unsalvageable. The fact that the subject has but two sources makes it doubtful that it is a notable for an article even if neutrally written, and nether of the sources use the title of the article or are specifically about that subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not just propaganda, but trashy crap consisting entirely of original research. We are not a webhost for petty dictators. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - At best, a POVFORK of Education in Kosovo. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Chronicles of Terror

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

Notability. If there was an article on the Witold Pilecki Center for Totalitarian Studies I'd argfue for a merge. But there ain't. As it stands this article risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - this seems pretty significant, not OR and based in RS. I don't see that POV is much of an issue. I don't find English language sources, but there are Polish language ones that seem RS in the article. The database is based on depositions of Polish citizens who testified before the Main Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which was taken over by the Institute of National Remembrance, so if a merge destination was desperately sought, that could be a possibility. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject isn't notable. None of the sources appear to be independent, including Polish government websites mentioning the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment From state run Radio Poland: the institute was created by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage and "According to Poland's deputy minister of culture and national heritage, Magdalena Gawin, the idea is to overcome an information barrier and demonstrate to the Western European public the extent of genocide in occupied Poland on the basis of documents and eyewitness testimonies." New institution to document crimes of genocide against Poland. A state-created entity could be notable but I am having difficulty locating independent coverage. Note: this reference refers to the project as "accounts of terror" which may be useful as an alternate search term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mainstream press coverage for example in [13]; more niche portal coverage at [14], and those are just from pl wiki article, I didn't search further, but that's already more than quite a few other archives (also, plus the English language source that the anon above cites). Clearly passes GNG. Also archives are usually separately notable from institutions that run them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important verifiable historical resource regardless coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - this needs to be re-organised and tagged appropriately but not AfD'd. In my opinion this has sufficent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

List of places named for Andrew Jackson

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

Indiscriminate unsourced list, this category of lists is not notable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. No real reason has been given for deletion. The criterion is quite specific, not indiscriminate, and lack of sourcing can be fixed. Why single Jackson out among the many, many such lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep this list is hardly indiscriminate. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Being a "hero in the war of 1812"--which the US started with us and lost--is hardly going to recommend him to me, as a Canadian Wikipedian. Nor is Trump's efforts to brand himself alongside him. But I don't see why we'd single Jackson out at Category:Lists of places named after people, whatever the issues. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Naming is a pretty interesting, political, and social process, and a list of this sort when there are many places named after an individual seems encyclopedic and useful. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not indiscriminate, this list is a valid spinoff from the section of Andrew Jackson on Memorials. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Important! Search has to be in the Geman Name "Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug" , not with Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I did just that, and it gave me less than 800 google hits, including the own website and social media. The Banner talk 10:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Ther is no regulation that it must have 801, 900, 1000 or what ever goole hits. Also it is wirten in Books about it.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Could please translate this in English? The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable organization ... recreation should be allowed in the future if additional sources are found BlueSalix (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@BlueSalix you have to search with the German name, not with the english translation..Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly a notable organization. Preserving Swiss Military History of the canton Zug, , responible for the only still existing Bristol Bloodhound Complex. Preserving Bunkers and open them for visitorsFFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
We have enough sources:
  • David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. VBS 2008 David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Military monuments in the area of the Luftwaffe. VBS 2008
  • Silvio Keller, Maurice Lovisa, Thomas Bitterli: Militärische Denkmäler in den Kantonen Uri, Schwyz und Zug. Inventar der Kampf- und Führungsbauten. (Hrsg.) Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, Bern 2005 [15]
  • Patrick Jordi: Militärhistorische Stiftung und die Festungen im Kanton Zug, Baar 2002
  • website - with all necessary information on the visits of the fortresses and the museum "Bloodhound"
  • Website ZDT - ZDT Zug depot technology history
  • Website FORT - CH - Homepage of the Swiss civilian organizations for fortresses
  • Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug: Karten der Werke
  • Die Schweizerische Fliegerabwehr 75Jahre Flab 1936-2011 , Albert Wüst, ISBN 978-3-905616-20-0
  • Bloodhound unit as museum in Menzingen, Switzerland

FFA P-16 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ow, I did not check the rest, but the first one (Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe) does not mention the organisation at all! The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Well ,if you don't understand what i had answered to your comment about the google search, it is no surprise that you don't understand the context in Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. Also that you ignor all the other sources shows cleary that you use Deletios Nominations against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that I say it blunt: you are falsifying sources, making the whole article unreliable. The Banner talk 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
No I am not. Only because you are not able to unerstand the context about this sources and references is not a reason to delet this articel. Also you say only read the first link and you havn't understand the context.Is one thing but ignoring all the other ones Show your true motivation... Because just a look at the second one [16] " Zusammen mit dem eidgenössischen Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport (VBS) und der Militärhistorischen Stiftung des Kantons Zug (MHSZ) wurde nach Wegen gesucht, um eine komplette Feuereinheit für die Nachwelt zu erhalten. ...Das VBS gestattet der MHSZ und dem Kanton Zug den Zutritt zur Anlage. Die MHSZ ist für den Museumsbetrieb zuständig und ermöglicht im Rahmen von Führungen auch den Besuch für die Öffentlichkeit." FFA P-16 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ever heard of "passing mention"? The Banner talk 09:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no "passing mention" the organization exists since 1994, The "Bloodhound" Museum exists since 2002. It is the only Museum on the world who has preserved the whole Bloodhound System ( not only the Missile) also the other Museum who contains Vehicles of Public Transportation, Firefightingvehicles and Military trucks& tanks exists since 2009. Also, like already told, the Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug is also part in Documents and in a Book. Also the MHSZ has created documents for the highschools of the canton Zug.[17] FFA P-16 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone who knows German sort out the claims of notability made above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I read German. The sources do not establish notability for the foundation because they are not independent of it, as they are mostly published on the foundation's own website (http://www.mhsz.ch). The paper by Patrick Jordi is an unpublished student paper. The Swiss Air Force publications do not mention the foundation, except once as a passing mention.  Sandstein  09:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The foundation is only the overall organization. the two museums are part of it. An Musuem of this size is notable.. and in this articel we have two museums.I see no need to delet all of this Informations about the hardware, the Museums, only because the organisation should be not notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not gonna !vote on this one since it's difficult to conclusively evaluate the sources, but they look pretty weak. For example, a news search for the original German name gives exactly six results, and a verbatim news search gives exactly zero. I agree that the places themselves are almost certainly notable, as places themselves normally are, but I am inclined to take User:Sandstein at his word on the quality of what's already in the article.
This could be a good candidate for draftifying, in the case that someone wants to try to excise the "place content" and spin off articles on those. And a good few screen shots may be in order in case anyone wants to write a snarky essay on WP:IMAGEOVERKILL. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Montenegrin-Albanian Conflicts

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

Original research. Theme not present in RS. Zoupan 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, the article creator, Dzepo4 has been found to be a sockpuppet. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is notable. I'm not sure what the nom means exactly by "Theme not present in RS". The sources cited in the existing article are reliable. If they have been mishandled by a banned user (I didn't check other than to see that the topic is present in the works), that's not a reason to delete the article. The title should perhaps be changed to better describe the topic, maybe even the scope broadened to Albanian–Montenegrin relations, but those are separate discussions to have. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamo-Leftism

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

Lack of notability. TheDracologist (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Islamo-Leftist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "islamo-gauchiste" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "islamo-gauchisme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject seems to be covered in multiple reliable sources. Why would it lack notability? Am I missing something? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per neologism. There are extremely few mentions of it in reliable sources, and insufficient detail to write a neutral article. Even worse, the term has been used by different writers with different meanings. These range from a "fringe" Trotskyist theory (that is fringe even among Trotskyists) that Islamists play a progressive role in resisting imperialism to a neo-fascist conspiracy theory that mainstream politicians (who by fascist standards are leftists) secretly take their orders from the ayatollahs. Rather than enlighten, this brief article is just a slogan. It attempts to conflate progressive politics with Islamic extremism without explaining why. TFD (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per TFD. Is Islamo-Leftism a real philosophy or a nasty epithet with which to tar one's political opponents? After reading this article many times, I couldn't tell you. The various "sources" that use the phrase don't appear to agree with one another about what it is. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftists do indeed describe the term as an epithet. That too can be reliably sourced:
  • "Islamo-Gauchisme Decrypted" August 2, 2016, Laurent Bouvet (Professor of Political Science at the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.) In this interview, he breaks the code behind the use of the term, islamo-gauchisme.[18].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete NEO is hte only policy I know regarding this. L3X1 (distant write) 21:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Except Badiou never used the term. Buckner spent exactly one paragraph discussing the concept and a novelist's use of the term is only significant if secondary sources mention it. TFD (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just checked the Badiou book cited in the article, Badiou DOESNOTLIKE this term, but he does use it as an example of bad-mouthing Muslims. He asserts that the phrase Islamo-leftist "originates with the police." Here: [19]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just sourced Michel Houellebecq's use of "Islamo-Leftism" in Submission to the Tom Brass essay Houellebecq, Anthropologist? I was reading Submission when I created this article two years ago. I came across this phrase, and wondered whether Houllebecq had coined it. I searched, and found quite a number of notable intellectuals using the phrase, so I created this article. A look at the talk page will show that quite a number of editors JUSTDIDNTLIKEIT then, but acknowledged that the soruces are solid, and did not take it to AFD. I see that quite a few WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now. Searches in French and English - try gBook searches on the term in both - French and English - will be will persuade objective editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • While he's hardly a reliable source, here is the redoubtable Shlomo Sand on Islamo-leftists:[21].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If added, Sand's blog post would easily be the most reliable source in the whole article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced article plenty of sources especially in French.Meets WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete LOL History repeats itself as farce: this is a Judeo-Bolshevism 2.0, but far less WP:NOTABLE than the original. The only adequately sourced section is Islamo-Leftism#History_of_term, which rubbishes the concept. I just checked the most imposing looking sources for kicks: The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, Princeton Uni Press(p. 25). This source tries to prove the existence of "Islamo-Leftism" with three footnotes: first one is about crazed hired-gun Carlos the Jackal; second is an obscure reference to a some Shiite "thinker" who allegedly mixed Islam with a "Marxist" and secular notion of history, somehow (no further elaboration is provided); the third footnote offers an abstract definition of Trotskyist entryism (footnote says nothing about Islam), and yet it is used in support of the author's specific allegations that Trotskyists had a strategy of embedding themselves in Islamist movements. Other source used here include a novel by Michel Houellebecq, together with some incomprehensible literary criticism of it. Fiction is not RS. This is the most retarded article I've ever come across on Wikipedia. All that's missing is a reference to "Leftist" Barack Obama being the "founder of ISIS". I appreciate humor though, so maybe my vote should have been "Keep LOL". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please stop being obtuse. I don't like the theory of Judeo-Bolshevism either, but it is clearly notable by virtue of being discussed in numerous carefully-documented and non-fictional studies. This on the other hand is clear WP:NEO. The notability of Judeo-Bolshevism does not hinge on rants by philosopher Othmar Spann or the poet Ezra Pound, regardless of which academic Jew-hating institution printed them at the time. The sourcing here is skimpy indeed, with several basically saying: "WTF is this shit?" Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It is notable because of sources like this: [22].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is already an article on "Regressive Left", and Islamo-Leftism appears to be an obscure neologism for the same thing. A fewof the sources in this article can be potentially be merged into "Regressive Left", which is the more notable EL term for w:fr:Islamo-gauchisme . Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is a search on this term + Valls (Prime Minister of France until last year) [23]. I really don't think you can dismiss this term as "obscure." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - covered by plenty of reliable sources. The reasoning for this AfD nom is weak at best.. Probably non existing considering the three word rationale. Drive-by? This article covers WP:NEO as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
yes, Nom is a new editor who hung similar drive-by tags on maybe a dozen pages, none of which looked likely to be deleted. Seems to have been acting in good faith, appeared to be just new and over-enthusiastic.
Note also that User:MShabazz, who argued for delete above, has previously edited the article, but had not tagged it for sourcing or notability, let alone brought it to AfD until that newbie did. He gives a weak, highly POV argument for deletion - the sources defining the term do not disagree is any substantive way. Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub, but the fact that intellectuals who DONOTLIKEIT nevertheless discuss it at some length supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. E.M. Gregory, please re-read and try to follow WP:BLUDGEON. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Leftists hate and wish to dismiss the term in a manner similar to the comments of User:Guccisamsclub" Of course you yourself are not politically motivated in any way, unlike those "Leftists." Thanks for the laugh. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – article appears to satisfy WP:NEO and meets WP:GNG. Article is along the line of Alt-right and other similar articles. Nomination is weak.  {MordeKyle  22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
People self-identify as "alt-right". Islamo-Leftism appears to be little more than an epithet. So not really comparable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That is wholly irrelevant.  {MordeKyle  00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
So why did you bring it up? Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant that its an epithet. I'm sure some alt-right type people think that term used for them is an epithet as well. The point being, both are a name of a sub group of the political party. Good luck going forward.  {MordeKyle  19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
"Article is along the line of Alt-right" My point was that it's not. "Alt-right" was coined by ... the "Alt-Right" — it is not an epithet in any way shape or form. Alt-right refers to an actual political movement that has been discussed at length in hundreds of RS. "Islamo-Leftism" more "along the lines of" Latte Liberal (the latter term being far more WP:NOTABLE). Note that both epithets have very close synonyms: Regressive Left and Champagne socialist, respectively. Both articles already exist, and summarize the underlying concepts. So IMHO, it's not just case of NOTNEO, but also NOTDICT as it applies to synonyms. I'll also note that — due to a lack of decent sourcing — the article is forced (as predicted by WP:NEO) into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The almost all of the sources in "Examples" section, do NOT actually use the term Islamo-Leftism. This is like starting an article titled "Dirty Commies", and then using Peat Bog Soldiers as an example of the relationship between Communists and dirt. To summarize the issues: WP:NOTNEO; WP:NOTDICT; WP:OR; WP:NOTABLE. The very few WP:RS's that discuss it (like Liberation) aren't even sure it is a real thing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment After questioning of the sources, some editors have presented a use in a single sentence in one book, a footnote or two in another, etc. In order to write accurate and balanced articles we need reliable secondary sources that describe the topic in full. Certainly a scholar can look for all the references "islamo-leftism," determine what they meant, how popular the term is, whether there are alternative names, whether the term means different things, whether it is used by left or right, mainstream or fringe, whether it is politically correct etc. But until that is done, we can only rely on the original research of editors. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and until adequate sources are available it is more appropriate to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This subject for sure is not fringe, there are considerable amount of published (particularly in French) material on the topic. On the other hand, I think we might be finding a better title than Islamo-Leftism. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thing is, Islamo-Leftism the neologism is just part of the broader subject (and more notable) in many political spheres (one example is Turkey, but there are plenty). An article on the neologism restricts the subject considerably to a tabloid level. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes but those are opinions and interpretation of rules which your opponents above will certainly disagree with. There is a reason why the neologism is distinctly covered in a restrictif circle in the European French speaking world, it does not resist its broather context lets say of the Turkish or Kurdish leftist population of Germany (someone could be accused of original research by even suggesting it). Such an article isn’t stable in time because it was arbitrarily scalped to follow a neologism which either way could be muting for all we know. Maintaining the stance imposed by its title require considerable amount of resources due to its instability generating conflicts and edit warring. We should be concentrating on content rather than forms here, and for the long term I don't see any other options than relabeling it with a more appropriate title. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yahya Talatin: Do you want to help me take this page in that direction, perhaps by adding sections on Turkish political coalitions/movements linked as I did for the short-lived Islamo-Leftist political party in Belgium?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not for convictions contribute considerably (particularly in conflict generating articles) in name-space anymore. I can however help you in talkpages in providing sources, materials and criticism and it would be up to you and others to settle what goes or doesn't go where and why. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that in response, I have started an "Examples" seciton. the Iranian example is supported by scholars using the term "Islamo-Leftism." The Belgian and Palestinian are formal, if shot-lived, political coalitions formed between avowed Marxist political movements and avowed Islamist political movements. Article will, of course, either develop in the direction suggested by User:Yahya Talatin, or retreat to a narrower interpretation of WP:WORDISSUBJECT; I have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right that the sources in the Iran section do use the term to refer to a group like People's Mujahedin of Iran, but that is quite different from the way the term is used in the rest of the article. Iran's "Islamo-Leftist" groups were not the products of any "Red-Green" alliances, but were merely characterized by ideologies that combined Socialism and Nationalism with appeals to Islam (like the FLN in Algeria). There was a de facto red-green "alliance" between Tudeh and Khomeinism in the sense that they did not see each other as enemies during the Iranian Revolution. So if you can find an RS that calls it "Islamo-Leftism", it might fit in with rest of the article. But at the moment, all you are actually doing is creating a COATRACK article about the "relationship between Islam and Leftism," because the term "Islamo-Leftism" is both hopelessly vague and rarely used. Don't you see this as problematic? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftists in Iran formally supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution; Leftists in Europe, particularly in France supported Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalist revolution. An enormous literature exists on this particular Islamo-Leftist alliance, some of which uses this phrase retrospectively (phrase was not coined until ~ 20 years after the Khomeini's revolution.) Just fyi, many phenomenon exist decades or centuries before a word for them is coined, see: bureaucracy, which the Byzantine Empire had even before Max Weber.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: Chronology has nothing to do with it. My point was that: (a) your sources are referring to disparate phenomena when they use "Islamo-Leftism"; (b) The stuff about Palestine and Belgium is OR in that none of the sources use the term at all. (On Europe and Iran: The most prominent defender of Khomeini's revolution (Khomeneism proper, not the broad anti-Shah revolution) in Europe was Michel Foucault, who an anti-Marxist and an anti-Communist at the time. Marxists and Socialists around the world generally hated Khomeini after he assumed power.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guccisamsclub, I think (opinions aside) it would be relevant if you could comment on the way the material could be addressed. Would you be accepting relabeling the article? What conditions would you be setting? How the content (not the form) survives is what interest me. A broader article which covers left and Islam would be in my opinion a good approach. Most similar conflicts are due to forms which require inclusions and exclusion criteria specific to editors and their different backgrounds. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi. Here's the problem: a hypothetical article that explicitly (with title change) covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left clearly fails WP:SCOPE. That's why there are no articles about overlaps between two huge categories, like Jews and Leftism or even Jews and Bolshevism (though Jewish Left is a legit topic — note the difference in scope). Currently, this article covers the "relationship" between Islam and the Left implicitly (in the examples section), creating a poorly-scoped WP:COATRACK of an article, wherein editors tack on "examples" of "Islamo-Leftism" via WP:OR. This is just unambiguously wrong, no less wrong than someone trying to tack on — Metapedia-style — "real-world examples" of the relationship between Jews and Bolsheviks to the Judeo-Bolshevism article. So the only possible option seems to be to list the various usages of the term. The problem here is that the term is typically used as a vague shorthand for different kinds of overlaps between Islam and the Left (depending on who's using it, and in which cultural context). But here you come up against WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what RS say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The fact that French politician Manuel Valls has used this as a polemical shorthand for some Western Leftists' sympathies with Islam, while a couple of English-speaking scholars have used it as a descriptive shorthand (for the ideology of certain political groups in Iran like the People's Mujahedin of Iran) does not speak well for its encyclopedic value. All this simply demonstrates the term's underlying shallowness and inconsistency. It's just a one of thousands of multipurpose hyphenated shorthands, which typically fail WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Based on the above, I think the article should be deleted, but if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there is sufficient coverage in sources, and not only in news sources, but in books, such as here, here, here,here, here, here, . My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This seems like a random google search, with little regard for what the term represents. The meaning is not consistent across your sources and it is also relatively shallow. Novels are not RS, and half the sources you cited are already in the article. Since wikipedia articles are not aggregators of google search results, I'd like see how you'd actually go about integrating these sources into the article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, this is not simply a google search, but links to specific sources. No, if anyone cares to look at these books, there is essentially only one meaning, and the sources can be used on this page. Note that the books are secondary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Your first source refers to a Trotskyist theory that Islam would become "the spearhead of a new insurrection...against global capitalism." Your second source refers to left-wing supporters of the Ayatollah such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). Your third source refers to "the partnership between leftists and Islamists." Those are three entirely different meanings. TFD (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
TFD: I basically agree, but #2 refers to People's Mujahedin of Iran who fought against the Ayatollahs for decades, so it's totally and irreconcilably different from the others. MVBW: #5 is WP:FICTION; #1, #4 are both Bruckner's polemical essays, and the idea that "Islamist Revolution" is a significant tenet of modern Trotskyism is WP:FRINGE (maybe there's a tiny sect with a dozen members that actually believes something approaching this); #6 is a brief and offhanded dismissal of the term; #3 is a brief mention. You need sources that actually try to flesh out the term (that's a policy requirement(!)—see WP:NEO, usage is not enough). The only source you've offered that meets this requirement is Bruckner's polemic. I suppose that, after you add the Liberation source, one could have an excuse for an article, but the article will be very short, uninformative and WP:FRINGE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert, but I think the meaning of the expression is essentially the same in all sources, namely, fusion between the left and religious radicalism - as was said here. OK, let's check another RS. It tells:
"Bruckner doesn't see the problem as French-only, noting that Islamo-Leftism emanated from the British Socialist Workers Trotskyites and fanned out Europe-wide. They saw Islam as a process to "spearhead a new insurrection in the name of the oppressed". To the Left Wing intellectual, who no longer knows how to understand the world and whose Communist gods have all died, there is no more hope. Their current focus now is the devil incarnate – the US and its pariah Israel.
I do not see the People's Mujahedin of Iran as something entirely different. They are actual Islamic leftists in flesh, which only makes this subject (as opposed to merely a neologism) even more interesting and notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Under the first definition, the ayatollahs and the MEK are part of the Islamo-leftist narrative, but neither the Trotskyists, the ayatollahs or the MEK are Islamo-leftists, since Islamo-leftism is a left-wing theory about Islam, not a political group. Under the second definition, neither the Trotskists or the ayatollahs are islamo-leftists, but the MEK are. Under the third definition, all of them are islamo-leftists, but only when the Islamic groups are working with the Trotskyists. (Note: I realize the MEK oppose the ayatollahs, but the author mentions them when they supported them.) If you think there should be an article about actual Islamic leftists in the flesh, there already is. (See Islamic socialism.) As someone who thinks left-wing refers to anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump, you should appreciate the more precise term of "socialism." TFD (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is not RS, and you just quoted an unscholarly and bombastic review of Brucker's book. Too much hinges on Bruckner, himself a bombastic polemicist who has no expertise on either Islam or Socialism. TFD has done a very good job describing the obscene category errors. Bruckner's usage designates narrative about the Left and Islam. Hunter 's usage (Iran scholar) designates specific political parties which had, as a matter of historical fact, explicitly combined Socialism with appeals to Islam. Likewise, some political philosophers and ideologues have written about Judeo-Bolshevism, while professional historians have written about the Bund. Both are ostensibly about the "fusion of Jewishness and radical Leftism", but only the latter refers to definite political movement. They are NOT the same thing, either politically or scientifically. And for the record, saying that MEK are "radical Islamists" and that the Trotskyists are Islamisms' fifth-columnists is WP:FRINGE (if you disagree, try inserting this stuff into the relevant articles and see how fast it gets reverted). Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Guccisamsclub Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You have used a series of arguments, meeting opinions that you DONTLIKE with mockery and by calling editors who disagree with you "obtuse." When a point you make is refuted, you introduce new objections. You are so set in your dislike of the idea of an Islamo-leftist alliance, that you seem unable to WP:LISTEN to fellow editors. Note that none of us is obliged to WP:SATISFY all of your ideas of what this article should be. Articles evolve under consensus and the work of multiple editors, as this one may. At present, however, WP:WORDISSUBJECT and you should put down your WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory, considering that you have made the most edits to this page, it is likely you who is bludgeoning the process. Why not take your own advice? There's no need to refute every comment on this page. Multiple times. (But I know you will reply to this because you seem unable not to get the last word in.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, pot meets kettle. The personal attack here are largely come from you (the false accusations above are yet another example). Right after I cast my vote, outlining several reasons for why the article may be unencyclopedic, you immediately dismissed it nothing more than IJUSTDONTLIKE, without addressing most (if any) of my substantive points. That's why I said "don't be obtuse" (linking "obtuse" to WP:LISTEN). You later said that my argument was nothing more than politically-motivated ("leftist") IJUSTDONTLIKE-ism. You have taken a similar tack in responding to the arguments of other editors. That's not a "refutation". In point of fact, I actually WP:LISTENED to and though about the points brought up by others, and think my comments fully bear that out. I have my doubts about whether you've done that. That's why my replies do not consist of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. This does not mean that my points have been "refuted": debates develop, unlike unlike monologues. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As written on the page, Hunter classifies the People's Mujahedin of Iran an Islamo-leftist organization.[15] I can't check the source (the book), but assuming good faith here, this is actually a proof (in WP:RS sense) that People's Mujahedin of Iran belong to the subject of "Islamo-leftism". My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have now linked to 3 of the 4 books in which Shireen Hunter discusses the Islamo-Leftist alliance in the Iranian Revolution, and added a passage form one of these books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for significantly improving this page and the sourcing [25]! Now I do not have any doubts that the page should be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory:*Can you please share a direct quote from Hunter? AFAIK, Hunter describes some Iranian groups as because Islamo-leftists because they had (opportunistically or otherwise) incorporated Islamic ideas into their Leftist ideology (and vice versa), not because they were in a temporary "alliance" with Khomeinism (they actually took up arms against it). That's why Hunter makes a distinction between Islamists, Islamo-Leftists, and the secular Left. If Islamo-Leftism refers to taking part in a revolution where Islamism played a major role, then they would all be "Islamo-Leftists", including Tudeh (which I've never heard described as "Islamo" anything). Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I think a good approach would be that those (particularly Guccisamsclub) who believe the article should be deleted propose an alternative which would maintain the information somehow or somewhere for those who think the information should go somewhere. I am under the impression that too much resources is put into the form rather than content here. I personally believe that in anything as long as there is just one opponnent it means that it isn’t yet stable. I do not adhere to the majority rule but the one of a true consensus.
Guccisamsclub, since the vote isn't achieving consensus (by brute numbers of votes), it would be constructive to propose an alternative which would be more acceptable for you. The wrong approach would be that everyone attempts to enforce their number 1 choice… a solution would be that each present a second alternative… their number two (and search for an overlap). A more heleocentric approach which places at the center the concensus (monotheistic-like) rather than our own personal opinions (polytheistic-like). I do realize however that this would technically go against the purpouses of a ‘’request for deletion’’ vote. This is in my opinion the only possible option in the long term. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yahya Talatin: I'll just quote myself: " if it is kept it should stick strictly to the term, preferably to one more or less definite usage of the term (either French polemical usage or English descriptive usage, but not both)."Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (Polemical usage refers to Bruckner, descriptive usage refers to Hunter). There is no consensus that they are talking about the same thing at all when they use the term. At the moment, only TFD and myself have actually tried to argue this point; others have merely asserted that they are the same without much evidence. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added additional search-bars (top of page) to assist editors in seeing the scope of this WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Note that Wikipedia's established rules and procedures do not include reaching a compromise solution that satisfies every opinion voiced. I hope to have time later this week to improve article using sources in English, French and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems well referenced and fairly well written. I see no reason to delete this. The bizarrely enthusiastic argument taking place here only serves to highlight interest in the subject and should probably be taken to the talk page. Mortee (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  • Note that the relisting was done by a relatively inexperienced editor (User:J9476) whose talk page contains requests from fellow editors to cease closing and/or relisting AfD discussions until he gains more experience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

William Willis (captain)

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

Non-notable individual who fathered John Walpole Willis, a member of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It was deleted once as A7 earlier on March 21, but the second creation was declined for A7 because the individual had a notable son and it could serve as a redirect. Because of the disambiguator I don't see that as a likely search term or a useful redirect, and the subject otherwise has no notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED; fails WP:GNG.Burning Pillar (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim of significance or importance. Don't see any value as a redirect either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN junior officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete NN junior officer; no references; notability is not inherited from his son. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of fulfilled prophecies

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

List on a sensitive topic, attracting (WP:PROMOTION), non-notable trivia (WP:NOTABLE and WP:GNG), usually (WP:NPOV) and WP:OR, non-verifiable WP:VERIFY claims. Title also not "Claims of fulfilled prophecies". PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Every visitor may be tempted to add their favorite prophetic belief, especially if the article already appears to be an undiscriminate collection of such claims. Various reverts have been done of persistent claims without supporting reliable sources (WP:RS). Multiple current claims are not referenced. The issues have been raised on the talk page in February (Talk:List_of_fulfilled_prophecies#Promotion_contention) and relevant tags were applied to the article, but this attracted no discussion. One month has elapsed since, and noone appears to currently want to work on improving the article (myself included). Few articles link to this one (Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_fulfilled_prophecies). This is not about an ongoing content dispute. This is the first request for deletion I submit, please don't hesitate to leave me a comment if something is problematic, such that I can also learn in the process. Thanks to all involved. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:List_of_fulfilled_prophecies. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Bastion_Monk (reason: article creator). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Shii (reason: provided substancial content). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Editor2020 (reason: reverted inappropriate edits more than once). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Chris_troutman (reason: reverted inappropriate edits more than once). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete All there are speculations, coincidences and postfactum interpretations of vague babbles of prophets. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename and prune. "Claims of fulfilled prophecies" (or "List of claims...") would be more accurate. I'd also keep only ones where there is a written contemporaneous record of the prophecy as a minimum. Some of these don't even have citations, but that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Matchups 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better if the relevant faith-related articles described those beliefs rather than such a trivia list? Another interesting aspect which I unfortunately didn't discuss in my original comment, would be coincidential technological advancements which made some science-fiction dreams reality, I'm not sure yet if we already have something about this, but it wasn't part if this article's content. It would still be a sensitive topic as literature, preferences and notability would still be involved. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename to Claims of fulfilled prophecies and prune. It is probably best that this be limited to events not less than (say) 80 years ago, and prophecies made not less than 100 years ago. This should exclude OR additions. It should probably exclude those from major religions: biblical prophecy is not there; and Bahai ones should not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No good can come if this. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kerry William Purcell

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial overtones and citing no reliable source coverage about his writing at all -- until I cleaned it up just now for WP:ELNO compliance, the "referencing" here consisted entirely of embedded offsite links to his own website, his own Tumblr and/or amazon.com. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his own self-published web presence or an online bookstore verifies that he exists; he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, which verifies that he passes WP:AUTHOR for something, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • WEak delete -- I failed to verify that he was a senior lecturer at Hertfordshire University, though mentioned on their website. Currently this is a BLP whose only source is the subject personal webpage, making it potentially WP:OR. If he was a senior lecturer, he might possibly meet WP:ACADEMIC, but I am dubious. It might be userified, but I cannot see to whom. Unless improved, I think it must be deleted as an unverified BLP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

William Kiehn

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

Kiehn served honorably but without meeting WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. He does not appear in the index of Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose. There is no credit for a role in the television series in IMDb (problems with that site acknowledged). Kiehn was killed in action in February 1945. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Kiehn's role in the company and especially his death is frequently discussed in books, but his name is usually given as "Bill Kiehn" (see Find sources: "Bill Kiehn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference). This is one in a series of AfDs about members of the Band of Brothers, and I'm unclear how to think about notability in these cases. The individuals feature in a number of historical and fictionalized accounts, and short profiles of their lives seem to exist in reliable sources. I understand that they are mostly notable for one thing and few/none meet NSOLDIER, but it seems to me their notability has persisted for a long time, especially since the movie Saving Private Ryan in 1998 and Band of Brothers (the book in 1993, the miniseries in 2001). That said, Google Books results suggest Kiehn only receives in depth coverage in the two Brotherton books currently cited in the article. I don't see in depth discussion of him elsewhere (but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here are some other recent Band of Brothers AfDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Mampre result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmo M. Haney result: No Concensus NB: Haney was a marine, and not in Easy company nor in any BoB media that I know of, but was a character in a different miniseries, sorry.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Boyle result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cobb result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III (2nd nomination) result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans result: delete
At the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans AfD, Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet (who is the nom on most of these) noted that they believed none of the members of Easy are/were notable, so I expect this list to grow. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the nominator on the recent AfDs; Evans and Haney were not mine although I was on the side of deleting in both cases. I'm working from the Band of Brothers miniseries, which appears on every Easy Company related page. In one sense, that template is a guide to the ten episodes of TV and nothing more. If we're only talking about the TV production, we should delete all the references to Ambrose, Brotherton, Ooms, Alexander and Kingseed (authors/co-authors all) and work on describing only the characters. I don't spend a lot of time on TV-oriented pages, most it would seem most of the characters barely qualify because they're largely forgettable. If we're talking about real people, no one one the list qualifies under WP:SOLDIER except Robert Sink and he only because he was later promoted to brigadier general (and eventually to lieutenant general) after the events in Ambrose's book. Some of those who don't qualify under SOLDIER may well qualify under WP:GNG because of what came after WW II or other factors. Richard Winters was an inspiration to his men after the War. Some of the men worked for the CIA and were involved in the Vietnam War. I think Norman Dike was originally a hatchet job by Ambrose and the men of Easy. I'm beginning to wonder about Herbert Sobel. There are more AfDs to come.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reply. I bring up the book, movie, and miniseries in order to contextualize the rise in popularity of material on the company. In my opinion, these figures might not have articles on them without that popularity. In a sense, they are a sort of fancruft, but maybe that is the wrong word. However, given the popularity is there, the articles do not seem to fail the three core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:POV, so the issue is GNG and the best interest of our readers. Further, the sources seem to me to be basically reliable, so the GNG question has to do with depth. I agree that not every member of Easy Company is automatically suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm not sure where the line is, but for me, this individual seems to have been a substantial character in a number of different tellings of the story of the company. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "Fancruft" may be a good word. Without the series and, before it, the book we wouldn't be having this conversation because many of these guys were no better soldiers than men we've never heard of. They're also a lot better than some. I don't know if we have a page about the criminal enterprises in Paris operated by Americans who had deserted; that casts a whole new light on the "greatest generation." <sigh> I really think the (non-existent) "BoB Project" can be improved by saying less. After all, people who want to read about the series can go to the Wikia project, which is actually pretty good as wikis go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, as with the others; the fact is, many served and many died; just not notable for a stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm striking my !vote. I've been thinking about this a bit more and looking over the other members of the company, and I think a possible alternative is to treat BoB as a "franchise". We have lists of characters of other franchises, such as List of characters in the Garfield franchise or whatever similar franchise list you like, but it turns out that having an especially long article, E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) pretty much covers most of what one might want to know from such a list. A link to a roster could someday be added to that page, and a list of non-notable individuals isn't really necessary (and is against policies and consensuses). Many individuals would still have their own page, though, and be listed at that page. Here are my guesses at what my criteria would be if more BoB individuals were sent to AfD:
    • An individual may be of enough historical significance that they would meet GNG even without the BoB "franchise" publications. For instance, Donald Malarkey may be borderline notable due to having a local political career, being a public speaker, and having numerous profiles of him as one of the last surviving members of the group. I don't think there are many of these individuals, but a few, probably all of them make for suitable pages.
    • An individual may just miss SOLDIER #1, but arguably meet SOLDIER #4 or #5, such as Richard Winters, William Guarnere, and possibly some of the company commanders. They might not be known about without the BoB franchise, but BoB is reliable enough and gives quite a bit of depth about their military actions as well as some personal life background. I think most of these could make for suitable pages.
    • An individual may be included as a character and be mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials and have had a somewhat public career. An example is David Kenyon Webster, who published some writings and his diary was posthumously published. Because this extra information passes V, and their presence in "franchise" publications is in depth, I think these can make for suitable pages.
    • A related group to the previous two are individuals who are only mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials because they are one of the last surviving members of the group. An example is the now deleted Leo Boyle. For these, I would !vote weak keep for at least some, but am not sure.
    • It could be argued that the rest are notable only as characters in the "franchise", and thus would fit in a list of characters. Such lists is a bit crufty, but that can be ok. I will not be creating one, and if one were created, it would have to be done with care given the consensus at the E Company talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans. I would probably not !vote delete for these, as I couldn't be sure that they do not pass on one of the above criteria in an offline capacity, but I would understand why they were up at AfD and I would not, generally, oppose their deletion. Kiehn seems to fit into this group.
  • This is just an explanation of why I am striking my !vote and an attempt to express my feelings in advance of anticipated related AfDs. I hope it is understood that I feel these criteria are within the spirit and letter of existing Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is meant to be helpful, and is not an attempt to create new deletion criteria. I am also adding a related comment at Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet's talk page. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we are to treat BoB as a franchise, then we need to edit all the pages and strike all references to the biographies of the men involved. Anything that happened before or after the war, except for things mentioned in the voiceovers at the end of the tenth episode, becomes moot. Even the reminiscences of the real men are historical rather than the historical fiction of the series, which compressed characters, created characters (the Belgian nurse), and reassigned tasks performed from one character to another. Then we can selectively created pages for the men who rate them under general notability (Sink is the only person who qualifies under WP:SOLDIER (and, yes, I know it's an essay). Winters may be arguable).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kiehn doesn't appear by name in the series, so we can do a speedy delete on his page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • [Sorry in advance for the long reply] By franchise, I mean that while the books are more or less reliable sources for the historical individuals, they can be treated as a something more akin to a single thing. N is built on three parts, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. V is satisfied when WP:RS are used. I think these books and their authors are more or less RS. NOR is satisfied when coverage is in depth and not primary (being in depth enough to write with sufficiently detail also allows an article to avoid WP:NOT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE), which is satisfied for many of these individuals on the basis of these books. NPOV might be trickier. These individuals are well known because one author thought their story was a good case to show the general point of what life was like for WWII soldiers (or something like that). To say that their case is representative is, then, the POV of that author. If another author agrees, then there is a question whether we have multiple points of view. If we treat all of the books as a "franchise", that is think of subsequent books are retellings/sequels/spin-offs, some by different authors, then all we have is the POV of the initial author and POVs that are somewhat derivative. Thus, an independent source would help to show the individual is well known, even if they are still only known for being a part of the franchise. Of course, if an individual played an important role in a historic event, then while we must take care in how we present the POV of the author on that event, the individual's notability can be established within the franchise, or even within a single book (NB, if they played a significant role in a battle, something like a silver star could be akin to a second POV on their importance).
I don't think this is the same as treating them as a single source, nor do I think that the collection should be treated as fictional. Rather, I would say that the contribution to the notability of a figure which has in depth coverage in a BoB related non-fiction book must be dealt with in a nuanced way. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we're arguing policy over notability when we should be asking whether we need a page on a soldier who enlisted, served, and died in an artillery barrage whose probable highest award was a Good Conduct Medal. There were some interesting people in Easy Company who went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam, helped develop our special operations capability, and worked for the CIA. It's just that Kiehn isn't one of them.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean to be arguing, I was just trying to explain why I struck my !vote and what my thoughts are on potential related AfDs. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- He strikes me as a rather NN soldier, who happens to have been chosen to be portrayed in a mini-series. That does not stop him being NN. Possibly merge/redirect to series Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867

Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article should only be a part of the Constitution Act, 1867, if a link to section 92 is required, a link can be made to s:Constitution Act, 1867#92billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested link does not work properly.Raellerby (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • If you mean the link to Wikisource, works fine for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid summary style split of the long list of various powers granted to the provinces from the main article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight's reasoning. 70.31.106.119 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Transwikify to wikisource. This is an important subject since it defines the "competence of provincial legislatures", but in its present form it is not an encyclopedia article. It might be repurposed and restructured to be such an article, but this is probably covered by Canadian federalism. There is probably only one 1867 Constitution Act, but it would still be useful if the word Canada appeared in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ... Public domain or other source material such as ... laws ..." WP:NOTREPOSITORY

Iio Tazu

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

Article discusses a fictional character but the references don't reflect this. Almost definitely copyright infringement from http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Tazu_Iio . May not be notable. EDIT: May not be entirely fictional, but no indication of real presence either. RoCo(talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Japanese wiki article (jp:お田鶴の方) makes it clear she is a real figure, though it notes the various versions of her story. The article is relatively well referenced, though it uses a lot of Edo era texts that are not easy to check. Michitaro (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Michitaro: Well, the first reference did not mention her name, so I thought it wasn't reliable. But what about the copyright infringement. I will withdraw this nomination if it's found to be clear of any copyright violation. RoCo(talk) 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably keep -- Since precise dates are given, I take this to be history, not fiction. Assuming COPYVIO issues do not arise, this relates to an incident of history. I know far too little of Japan to know whether or not this was a notable series of events. If kept, the article needs a lead section to take the reader into the subject, rather than plunging straight inot the midst of events. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • TNT Delete While the subject may or may not have existed, the current content is not at all verifiable (and no good version to go back too). It has been entirely copied from Wikia and the sources in the article do not mention anything about the subject. I am unable to find sources. This is ripe for a TNT which will probably allow an interested editor to start again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Franke

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

An unremarkable Waffen-SS man. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage cannot be found: link.

No de.wiki article. Berger is a WP:QS author and is non RS for the purpose of establishing notability; please see this supplementary discussion of Berger & The Face of Courage at RSN permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably delete -- We have an impressive list of medals, including one only awarded 631 times. That might make him notable, but we need some text from the citation as to what he did before I will accept he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If the facts behind to Knight's Cross award and the Close Combat medal in Gold are presented then it would possibility meet notability; one cannot tell given the barebones presentation currently there. I don't have information to add on this soldier. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It didn't take much Googling to find another source about him and add it to the article. It's an unpleasant feeling to record his deeds but that's the nature of an encyclopedia. There's enough verifiable detail here to warrant an article about him. Mortee (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Literature on the SS Death's Head Division like Charles Sydnor's Soldiers of Destruction (Princeton UP, 1977; 1990) or Niels Weise's biography of Theodor Eicke, the division's commander (a PhD., published in German 2013) do not mention a Kurt Franke. Apart from listings in certain directories of certain award and medal recipients, he seems to be mentioned only in Florian Berger's originally self published work on Knight's Cross recipients with Close Combat Clasp. If the bar is not to be set at the lowest imaginable level, that does not qualify as significant coverage. I was able to find one review according to which that work conveys only loose information to the biographical facts, but focuses on a retelling of the fighting, in which the soldier has participated.[26] Indeed, Berger mentions Franke's service as a concentration camp guard only in passing and is not able (or willing?) to name the concentration camp(s) where Franke served. The reviewer, Klaus Schreiber, characterizes the work as hero worship and unfavorably notes that there may still be a market for such publications. (Maybe that explains why Stackpole issued a translation.) Thus Franke does not meet the criteria even of WP:SOLDIER. There are not enough information to include details about Frankes personal life, education and military career. There are only information about the awards he received and Berger's work is not what I would consider a reliable secondary source. --Assayer (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not need articles based on poorly research works in praise of SS officers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 28 March 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=772689508"
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