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. – Joe (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsuch Parkrun[edit]

Nonsuch Parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Parkrun (2nd nomination))

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Local event lacking significant, non-trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw on the AFD log that the edit summary for this AFD included "(TW)" in it, is Twinkle broken my any chance?^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: - I got an error entering this AfD using Twinkle and had to enter it manually. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. How it survived the first nomination is beyond me. Ajf773 (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NEVENT. A weekly run through a park, part of hundreds of similar runs that take place around the world, is practically the definition of a run-of-the-mill topic. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PRESERVE. There are sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger with higher level pages such as Parkrun or List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing worth merging to a higher level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Him[edit]

Camilo Him (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as the claims in the article are inflated, or misleading. Much of the language is promotional, and the citations link to promotional/personal sites (and SaatchiArt.com!). The short film Exitus (do not confuse with numerous other films of the same name) appears to have never screened at festival. His work is not in the LACMA collection, and the Big Shows exhibition appears to have been a rental space during fashion week. The essential question is whether his work as a fashion photographer rises to the level of notability. I don't think so, hence my bringing it here.

This went through AfD in 2014, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Shows closed as merge to Camilo Him, which in turn was closed as non consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilo Him with comments from the SPA creator of the pages that bordered on UNCIVIL.

I'm perplexed by the claim that two of the prints are in the LACMA collection, as the LACMA collections site has nothing under Him's name [1], and none of the 8 sources support the claim. They are all articles about the Sheats–Goldstein Residence being given to LACMA. Him did at least one photo shoot there, but that is what the house has been used for for decades, and does not establish notability. No... wait, I think I figured it out: this press release that Big Shows (e.g. Him) put out [2] says that James Goldstein (the most recent owner of the house) bought two of his prints at charity auction, so these works must have been on the walls of the house that was donated to LACMA, and that is where the claim is coming from? That is a stretch.

Additionally, the Lincoln Center website has no reference to this exhibition titled Big Shows. [3] There is a website, but it is primarily a gallery of photographs of fashion world people who were *at* the opening. There are some remaining event listings [4], but these don't really establish whether this was a rental space, or whether LC curated it in some way. The sense I get is that it was a rental, likely in a fashion week tent. Theredproject (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References 16-28 they do not even include the name of the article subject! Incredible. Promotional garbage pile.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed numerous Tumblr, youtube and promotional sources used as refs, and all of the LACMA collection refs and text, since it clearly is not true or supported by the refs.96.127.242.226 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theredproject and 96.127.242.226 Come on! You are not Wikipedia editors! You can’t fact check anything that is not on Instagram! Go ahead I dare you to delete article within 24 hours… Vlaich (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theredproject and 96.127.242.226 Don't call it promotional garbage, plenty of Wikipedia editors changed the the article... You will have a great time editing all of Wikipedia if you don't like what they did before!Vlaich (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's have a look at what the sources say (I'm ignoring the dead links):

  [5] artslant is a portfolio website, anyone can create a profile. It is not an independent, reliable source.

  [6] mentions the subject as a member of the jury for a beauty pageant and refers to him as a французский fashion-фотограф (French fashion photographer) who shoots for L'Officiel.

  [7] I have no idea what this is, but it supports the claim that the subject was a judge at beauty pageants, which I have no reason to doubt. That the organizers of a Russian pageant would call a French photographer a celebrity is entirely plausible.

  [8] is a piece by "Intern", not "Staff Writer", as the citation says. It does not mention Balmain, Balenciaga, and Ungaro, but mentions Christophe Sauvat instead.

  [9] imdb.com is not a reliable source.

  [10] is not an independent, reliable source

  [11] imdb.com is not a reliable source.

  [12] doesn't mention the subject

  [13] indiegogo is not an independent, reliable source

  [14] is an interior design blog that shows a work by the subject and describes how the designer's cousin "won it at a Silent Auction".

  In conclusion, there is only one source that looks like it might be usable (kyivpost.com), but the statement it supports is blatantly false. Celebrity or fame are not the same thing as notability. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or something that meets the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. I don't see anything that comes even close to meeting those. Delete Vexations (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Delete. Promotional garbage. Spam bombarded with dud sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly huge COI issues and puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per above, self promotional, non notable article. Work permit (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability based on provided sources. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Promotional, puffery-filled, article on a non-notable individual. Reyk _YO! 16:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL#14/WP:NOTPROMO. If some independent editor can find sufficient good sources to adequately demonstrate notability then they can recreate it. Jbh ^Talk 17:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like WP:SNOW.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U Jin Jo[edit]

U Jin Jo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, doesn't meet guidelines JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, no significant award, no widely recognized contribution. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability anywhere. In fact in my opinion it comes very close to speedy deletion A7. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nurse (vaudeville)[edit]

Hello Nurse (vaudeville) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Possible hoax. » Shadowowl | talk 19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing any evidence on a quick sweep of Newspapers.com for 1880-1920 that this phrase was actually used in conjunction with vaudeville. In any event it is not a noun, which is the meat of encyclopedias, at best an unsourced snippet about what possibly was an ephemeral meme of the day. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after pondering for a bit I think it should be deleted. It's a phrase that is not notable. Not a lot of coverage in my review of it (outside of it being used on a 1990s cartoon show) JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likewise, I wasn't able to verify anything in the article, as plausible as it seems. Mortee (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale[edit]

Education Not for Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it has no sources, it is impossible to determine if the claims in the article are valid or if it passes WP:NORG.  » Shadowowl | talk 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has sources and there are alternatives to deletion such as merger with Campaign for Free Education. Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Anders Nelson[edit]

Jan Anders Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST due to lack of significant exhibitions or critical impact. The exhibitions are mostly open hang or open call juried shows at non-notable venues. See CV for full listing [15]. I don't know if the Multilingual App Toolkit is significant enough to qualify as a computer scientist, but given there is no wiki page or redirect for the tool... Also, this page had a saatchiart.com link on it. Theredproject (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete references do not rise to the level of notability, due to their poor quality.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myši Natálie Mooshabrové[edit]

Myši Natálie Mooshabrové (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a bot article, although its creator was subsequently banned as a sockpuppet. @Shadowowl:, did you check the corresponding article in the Czech Wikipedia before nominating this article? The Czech article includes a link to a review that I have now added to the English article. More references probably exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are bot articles given the fact that the creator made these with a speed of up to 9 articles per minute. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain:The reference you added, i.e. the review at [16], was written by someone named Uživatel Dooren, who read the book, and wrote about it there in 2004.
Take a look at who that Uživatel Dooren might be on same site: http://www.ctenar.net/uzivatele_v.php?user=user40432fdeb43a3
- What does the list tell you(?)
- What does the email hosting domain telll you(?)
- What are the termini of the Google search ["Uživatel Dooren"], and what's the collective aggregate story to all that content(?)
What does Wikipedia say about reliable sources(?)
I'd say that you claimed to have found a teapot, but it's not a teapot. -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - this does not appear to be one of Ladislav_Fuks's notable novels. -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not so easy finding coverage of a pre-internet era book, but the old Czech periodical Slovník české prózy had an in-depth review (reprint here) and a review from 2017 in the magazine Kultura21 [17] If a book from 1970 is still getting in-depth coverage and there's a play in production based on the book decades after its publication[18], it's notable. This nom needs to end this AfD fishing expedition and only AfD articles after due-diligence determination that a topic is non-notable.--Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: Nice job ;-)
- Can & Will you, or anyone you might know, write up this article to have encyclopedic value?_{and that much before our local star goes supernova.} -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade and Eastmain. SportingFlyer talk 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladislav Fuks pending some sourced content that expands on the bare-bones description that is already in the Fuks article. The only content in this article apart from the name of the author and the publication date is the unsourced claim that it is a "psychological novel", which might theoretically be "true" but it is not how either cs.wiki or this source categorize it: the former says "sociální román" while the latter gives "společenský román", both of which apparently translate to social novel, not psychological novel. The article on Fuks, on the other hand, already includes a translation of the title, content that doesn't need a secondary source, that is not in this article. If I were reading about Fuks in our article on him, and clicked the link, having already read there that he wrote a book called Myši Natálie Mooshabrové in 1970, only to find out that Myši_Natálie_Mooshabrové is a novel written by Fuks in 1970, I would be genuinely annoyed: too many of the "keep" !votes in situations like this simply don't keep our final readers in mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ignores the fact other votes have shown enough sources exist to flesh the article out, though. We don't delete stubs for being stubs. SportingFlyer talk 19:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibův zločin[edit]

Kalibův zločin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. What matters is the notability of the topic, not the quality of the article. The Czech Wikipedia has a lengthy article at https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalib%C5%AFv_zlo%C4%8Din that may establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Abundant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Jklamo (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jklamo. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and GScholar. James500 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. – Joe (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Gregorsky[edit]

Mikael Gregorsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST for lack of exhibitions and impact. Appears to be a working editorial photographer, but if under that category, this is TOOSOON. Had saatchiart.com as a source. Many of the other links are dead, or don't back up the claims. Theredproject (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an artist with a few show and a few sources, but nothing rising to our standard of notability.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Malik[edit]

Sardar Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article cites no sources, has nothing except the lead sentence, no mention of notability. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep I've expanded the article a bit and added sources. May just be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. If the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, which is mentioned by the newswire obituary published unchanged by many newspapers (eg), could be verified, notability would be unarguable. But the award cannot be verified and I'm dubious that he received it given his muted fame. Note that the Hindu obit does not mention the award; neither does Anu Malik in an interview in which he portray Sardar Malik as a struggling artist. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as now has significant reliable sources coverage such as The Hindu and book sources, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlčí jáma (novel)[edit]

Vlčí jáma (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can be expanded from cs:Vlčí jáma (kniha) Remember WP:BEFORE Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article mentioned above has no references either, no citations, no evidence of notability. Work permit (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. Per below as James500 found notability. Work permit (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK because the author, Jarmila Glazarová, is of exceptional historical importance, such that you would expect her works to be studied. Her importance is explained by her biography in The Penguin Companion to Literature (Penguin Books, 1969, ed. Anthony Thorlby, volume 2 (European Literature), page 315). The "Penguin Companion" is a book that includes only the most important authors and is exceptionally highly selective. Further, the "Penguin Companion" identifies this book as one of her most important works, because it only includes the most important works of the authors it includes. James500 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Would you mind adding that reference to the article? Thanks.Work permit (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smyčka[edit]

Smyčka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowowl, how did you come to the conclusion that this topic doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor WP:GNG? --Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In just a few seconds I found a ton of in-depth coverage has been written about this book from the like of Mladá fronta DNES, Lidové noviny and ČT24.[19][20] It has even been made in to a Česká televize movie. [21][22]. All of this demonstrates this topic easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Being a stub is not a reason to delete. --Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Readers would be better served by having the article redirect to the author's page. As it stands, the article is a content fork with absolutely no content about the book. Also, there is no referenced used in the article. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. Being a simple stub is not a reason to remove it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Maria Plojhar[edit]

Jan Maria Plojhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can be expanded from cs:Jan Maria Plojhar Also, discussed at https://books.google.com/books?id=KxaTLaIG9WcC&pg=PA105&dq=%22Jan+Maria+Plojhar%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0saSMirHcAhXM5IMKHbWxAdEQ6AEIRjAF Quote: "A classic example of the Adulterous Muse in Czech literature occurs in Julius Zeyer's novel Jan Maria Plojhar (written between November 1887 and February or March 1888).20 In a number of respects, the hero, ..." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK because the author, Julius Zeyer, is of exceptional historical importance, such that you would expect his works to be studied. His importance is explained by his biography in The Penguin Companion to Literature (Penguin Books, 1969, ed. Anthony Thorlby, volume 2 (European Literature), page 838). The "Penguin Companion" is a book that includes only the most important authors and is exceptionally highly selective. Further, the "Penguin Companion" says this book is one of the "best novels" he wrote. James500 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added more sources in English that prove notability, and I've added some basic plot and thematic notes. The Czech article gives a longer plot summary that could be adapted to this article, which would make it longer than could reasonably be merged into Julius Zeyer. Mortee (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalidní sourozenci[edit]

Invalidní sourozenci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. This one says: "Bondy's samizdat novel Invalidní sourozenci (The Invalid Siblings) was considered the bible of the underground from the time of its publication in 1974." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NBOOK by having made a significant contribution to a significant and notable political movement. James500 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Shadowowl and AfD was not to procedurally close these AfDs en masse, however ill-considered they may have been, but to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Following that logic, an AfD with this level of participation would usually be relisted. However, given the indiscriminate nature of the nominations, I don't think that would be productive. But if any editor is willing to do a proper WP:BEFORE and re-nominate this, they should feel free to do so. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Král železný, král zlatý[edit]

Král železný, král zlatý (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The author of this book, Ludmila Vaňková, appears to satisfy GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc but lacks an article, as far as I can see. (Cf Czech wikipedia). James500 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konec starých časů[edit]

Konec starých časů (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This novel was made into a film, so it meets WP:NBOOK. There is a much longer article on Czech Wikipedia, which can be used to expand this article. The nominator is on a deletion spree, and should slow down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen328. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film. James500 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lekce tvůrčího psaní[edit]

Lekce tvůrčího psaní (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found multiple reviews in notable Czech media, see [23] (iLiteratura.cz), [24] (Novinky.cz), [25] (iDNES) [26] (Lidové noviny). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovci orchidejí[edit]

Lovci orchidejí (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is an old book (I personally loved it as a kid) and online search is complicated, hovewer, some entries at G-books suggest there is a possibility to compile a good article about it. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mord[edit]

Lord Mord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - obviously it is a weak stub of an article, but I actually think it might satisfy criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK, it's possible it might manage another, but not being a czech expert I've not spotted that. The following comes with the usual disclaimer that my assessment of reliability etc of czech sources is a judgement call, not a known fact. That said 2 longer reviews, Detailed Review (also see review of book 2 on right), Kultura review. Then a couple of borderline Sig Cov (more than trivial) reviews Short review 1 (scroll down to below "Love between Dimensions"), Short review 2 (Either side of letter for discovery of the year),
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

František Flos[edit]

František Flos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced bot article about person not shown to meet WP:NWRITER » Shadowowl | talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is high time all articles have at least one source. GNG would suggest we need a minimum of two in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't fight to keep this article, but nominator has been deleting a lot of bot-stub articles which appear to be notable and should be fleshed out. I have found a number of Czech sources about Mr. Flos in one simple web search but cannot understand them, so I will not be voting. SportingFlyer talk 06:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Bot-like nomination made without any due diligence. For example, one can immediately see that there are articles for the subject in three other languages. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena (novel)[edit]

Magdalena (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Bot-like nomination made without any due diligence. There was an obvious alternative to deletion -- merger to the author's page -- and, in any case, it is easy to find coverage such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Shadowowl and AfD was not to procedurally close these AfDs en masse, however ill-considered they may have been, but to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Following that logic, an AfD with this level of participation would usually be relisted. However, given the indiscriminate nature of the nominations, I don't think that would be productive. But if any editor is willing to do a proper WP:BEFORE and re-nominate this, they should feel free to do so. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mladý muž a bílá velryba: Malý chemický epos[edit]

Mladý muž a bílá velryba: Malý chemický epos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Carrite. These 150-plus bot-tool generated AfDs have zero regard to WP:BEFORE.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Shadowowl and AfD was not to procedurally close these AfDs en masse, however ill-considered they may have been, but to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Following that logic, an AfD with this level of participation would usually be relisted. However, given the indiscriminate nature of the nominations, I don't think that would be productive. But if any editor is willing to do a proper WP:BEFORE and re-nominate this, they should feel free to do so. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Na krásné samotě[edit]

Na krásné samotě (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Shadowowl and AfD was not to procedurally close these AfDs en masse, however ill-considered they may have been, but to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Following that logic, an AfD with this level of participation would usually be relisted. However, given the indiscriminate nature of the nominations, I don't think that would be productive. But if any editor is willing to do a proper WP:BEFORE and re-nominate this, they should feel free to do so. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemodlenec[edit]

Nemodlenec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Four AfD nominations in two minutes? You're required to perform WP:BEFORE as a stub bot article may nevertheless be notable. I'm not so sure this one is, but the 1873 book did get made into a 1924 movie in Czechoslovakia... SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of three made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Another bot-tooled AfD with zero regard to WP:BEFORE. Very notable author. Book was even made into a 1927 film.--Oakshade (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Shadowowl and AfD was not to procedurally close these AfDs en masse, however ill-considered they may have been, but to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Following that logic, an AfD with this level of participation would usually be relisted. However, given the indiscriminate nature of the nominations, I don't think that would be productive. But if any editor is willing to do a proper WP:BEFORE and re-nominate this, they should feel free to do so. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olga poznává život[edit]

Olga poznává život (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Theodor Mundstock[edit]

Pan Theodor Mundstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pointless virtual null article, with no honest prospect for development. -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I'm not voting delete because I think there shouldn't be an encyclopedic article on "Pan Theodor Mundstock". I'm voting delete because the test-of-time strongly indicate that there never will be one. - Furthermore, since deleting ~8 years of "work" equates to deleting a very few words of simply trivia, then virtually nothing is lost by deleting it. -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - Changed my vote: It looks like the AfD had a very positive effect. -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD should get no credit. There are better ways to get articles expanded than proposing deletion without Googling first. Glad you've switched to 'neutral'. If you have doubts that mean you can't vote 'keep', please do air them. It might be something that's easy to fix. Mortee (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - G5. Creator was sockpupeteer. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The corresponding article in the Czech Wikipedia says: "The book is ranked among Fuks' greatest works and has been translated into several languages, highly prized in Germany, Poland and Hungary." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also called "Mr Theodor Munstock". Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. Also satisfies NBOOKS. Achieved "world renown": [27]. Many translations: [28] in seventeen countries. Has book reviews calling it "brilliant": [29]. Generally regarded by critics as "one of the best" books of its time: [30]. And I could go on in this vein, because there is a lot more where that came from. And I award a massive WP:TROUT to those editors above who thought this book was not notable. James500 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: (per my above added clarification on Delete) Do mind the old fisherman's proverb: "He who throws trouts around, may end up smelling of red herring." ^{[citation needed]} -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the test-of-time strongly indicate that there never will be one" above. Has it occurred to you that I or someone else might raise this article to the WP:HEYMANN standard in the immediate future (since we have been expressly asked to do so)? I've already started to collect sources in order to facilitate this, in case you hadn't noticed. James500 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Are you aware that we're not just taking about one article, and not just talking about 147 articles, but are in fact talking about thousands of articles from Starzynka? -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it bad faith? The article all have a similiar composition. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith, because you did it in a manner that made it difficult to others to review, that you did not considerthe possibility of notability , and did not follow WP:BEFORE, and have been and continue to be POINTy in trying to justify them. Good faith would be to apologize. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I didn't make the nomination. But I think when it was nominated, it was a useless stub written by an editor accused of bot edits. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, at time of nomination: The article was this shit, and was one of roughly 25000 articles created by Starzynka at bot-like speeds, with no obvious concerns for notability.
Considering that WP:BEFORE suggests the application of due diligence, then - as the pot told the Pope: "You look like a black dude" ^{it's an old Vatican proverb}.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviews and academic discussion easily meet WP:NBOOK #1 and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check would have proven notability. Significantly expanded, so no honest prospect for development was wrong. Re WP:G5: "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." In any case, it was a brief placeholder for a significant book. Who made it isn't the issue. Mortee (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putování slepého hada za pravdou[edit]

Putování slepého hada za pravdou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can be expanded from the corresponding article cs:Putování slepého hada za pravdou. Remember WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs)
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Příběh kriminálního rady[edit]

Příběh kriminálního rady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this does not appear to be one of Ladislav_Fuks's notable novels. -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film: [31]. (The film is "In the Silence of the Night", 1978). Appears to satisfy GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere (assuming I am reading the czech language sources correctly). James500 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 redirect to Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel. – Joe (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet[edit]

Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub, one line article. Possibly non notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta MüllerDer Teufel sitzt im Spiegel. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No references used. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is apparently a subsection of Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel so should definately be redirected into that article. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize the guidelines also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."" --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NBOOK #5. SportingFlyer talk 06:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Herta Müller. "Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet" is the subtitle of Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, which makes it a little unclear that it's a separate book at all. All the top Google hits for this in quotes are about Der Teufel. German Wikipedia doesn't have an article for either book and their article about the author, which is more detailed than our own, doesn't mention Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet except as a subtitle. If it is a standalone book then, despite WP:NBOOK #5, a standalone article isn't the best way to organise the information, in my view, unless and until we have more to say about it than this stub. I wasn't able to find sources with which to do that. Mortee (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect should be to Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, the collection which contains this lecture series, and takes its name as a subtitle. Mortee (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as the nomination does not request deletion. As for the topic, this source, explains that it was a series of lectures which were subsequently published. Per WP:BEFORE, nominators should establish the nature of the topic before starting another page just so that other editors are made to explain the matter to them. As James500 explained, the fact that the author is a Nobel-winner, is enough. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew D.. The source you mentioned is useful, thank you. It's good to know that Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel contains Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet, hence the subtitle. I still haven't found anything substantial about the lectures separate from Der Teufel, though, so I still vote for a redirect (to Der Teufel, not to Herta Müller - I've corrected my !vote). The lectures can be discussed there unless/until that section outgrows the main article. Mortee (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this article is about a section of a book? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be. That's why I think it should be redirected to the book it's in. Mortee (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was initially under the impression it was just a non-notable book by a notable author. But if it's just a subsection, it should definitely be redirected into the main book. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and redirect it into Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. The discussion has several keeps already, so redirecting is not really appropriate right now. WP:BOLD doesn't really apply when it's already under discussion. ansh666 00:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was redirecting to the main book and not the author as Mortee suggests. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel as a categorized ((R to related topic)). This book/essay is part of a series of poetry lectures (poetologischen Vorlesungen) that makes up the target, Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, interspersed with verbal collages. Sam Sailor 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Thing Cursed?[edit]

Is This Thing Cursed? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article falls under WP:Too soon as the album hasn't been released yet. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's out in 5 weeks and will obviously be notable enough for inclusion. While it's a little early, there's already too much detail to include in the band article, and deletion now would be pointless. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will only remind about WP:CRYSTAL. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which is concerned with speculation about future events that might not happen. Given the album has a release date in the near future, with tracklisting and artwork confirmed, WP:CRYSTAL isn't a good argument for deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why delete it only to recreate it later? It's beyond stupid. 170.40.160.25 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the fixed release date, its guaranteed notability given the band's popularity, and the fact that the first single has been released from it already. Per the comments above, deleting it now would only mean more work in a few weeks time, and wouldn't improve the encyclopedia. The corresponding essay for WP:Planned films suggests that films can be notable once principal photography has begun. As recording is presumably now complete on the album, which has an announced track listing and release date, I'd say the same principle applies here. Mortee (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of whether it falls under 'Too Soon'it is standard practise to create articles based around releases before their official release date. As others have said, it would only be recreated in a few weeks, so what's the point? Drmotley (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proti všem[edit]

Proti všem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Alois Jirásek, was nominated for the nobel prize for literature four times. James500 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A book that was adapted to the most expensive Czech film of its time is most certainly notable. Extremely notable author. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. well-known author, made into major film, and good csWP article to translate for expansion. Absurdly unjustified nomination. Att he time of the nomination, the interwiki link was present--and checking the article in other WPs when there is a link to them is the easies and most obvious form of BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

První parta[edit]

První parta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Karel Čapek, was nominated for the nobel prize for literature seven times. James500 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can be expanded from the corresponding article cs:První parta. Remember WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with the others that nominating over 150 articles like this one without the slightest about of WP:BEFORE is not helpful nor serves anyone. Extremely notable author and book was even made into a film. --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. famous author, and made into a film, and available article in another WP from which this can be easily expanded. Of this batch of deletion nomination, this is one of the least justified-- so little justified that it casts doubt upon all the other nominations. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of Unfaithful Klara[edit]

The Case of Unfaithful Klara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The book was made into a film, The Case of Unfaithful Klara (film). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film. James500 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy keep: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 21:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Per WP:TPO and WP:BOLD, and my message on User:Shadowowl's talk page, I went ahead and modified their close (which originally just said "keep") and struck their OP comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudá záře nad Kladnem[edit]

Rudá záře nad Kladnem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Antonín Zápotocký was prime minister and president of Czechoslovakia. James500 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy keep. Vejvančický's comment seems decisive while the nomination is one of a vexatious bundle. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stříbrný vítr[edit]

Stříbrný vítr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, Czech "classic" mentioned in many textbooks of the Czech literature of the 20th century. Many film stars appeared in the film adaptation from 1954.[32] Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Horizons (1953 film)[edit]

Stone Horizons (1953 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article says virtually nothing other than this is a 1953 Croatian film and who directed it. A quick Google search for "Stone Horizons" throws up nothing about the film other than the Wikipedia articles. Vorbee (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[33] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GregorB. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One simply has to look to find coverage, e.g. Balkan Cinema: Evolution After the Revolution. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koncert (1954 film)[edit]

Koncert (1954 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found some references using Google and found some others in the corresponding article in the Croatian-language Wikipedia. This article is a good xample of why WP:BEFORE includes checking non-Engliush-language sources and the corresponding non-English Wikipedias for non-English-language topics. I don't read or speak Croatian, but I figured that it was unlikely that a 1954 Croatian-language film would have escaped attention from reliable sources in what was then Yugoslavia. There are probably several print-only references from 1954 that could be added to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY with the addition of reliable sources as above, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, preserved at the Croatian national archive [34]. In fact, it's the only film selected for preservation from that year, so I'd certainly expect it has a fair share of offline sources. Daß Wölf 00:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millions on the Island[edit]

Millions on the Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [35]. Daß Wölf 02:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Without Love[edit]

Heaven Without Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 17:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I had a rough look and I couldn't find any third party sources talking about this article. Also, the Serbian version has no references, just like this article.

  Suggest delete or redirect into film maker. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, preserved by the Croatian national archive [36]. Daß Wölf 00:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Also WP:NFILM states "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article isn't of encyclopedic value at all. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. on the basis that we are normally extremely inclusive for verifiable films. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U oluji[edit]

U oluji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [37]. Daß Wölf 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Daß Wölf. GregorB (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igre na skelama[edit]

Igre na skelama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[38] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veliko suđenje[edit]

Veliko suđenje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[39] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 23:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Early close per IAR due to volume of noms. Article is significantly expanded. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Face to Face (1963 film)[edit]

Face to Face (1963 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Was just a stub, but it looks like a highly notable film. I've substantially expanded the article with several references. It still needs a lot of work, and my efforts are limited by the fact that I don't know Croatian, but I think notability is well established. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:HEY as multiple reliable book sources have been added and the articlle expanded to start class from a micro-stub, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is indeed a highly notable film, and the article indicates it now. GregorB (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Rhododentrites' sources satisfy GNG. I'm glad that some good content creation has come out of this after all :) Daß Wölf 23:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following the article's expanison. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Svanuće[edit]

Svanuće (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [40]. Daß Wölf 02:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above - Another crappy nomination by this nominator, As above meets NFILM and I would imagine there's a few sources on this offline. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Medal[edit]