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. Anybody is free to write a new, non-COI, better sourced, replacement for this, per WP:TNT -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton Hall[edit]

Thornton Hall (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 about a defunct private school, "referenced" to a contextless and unfootnoted smattering of glancing namechecks of its existence in books about other things, and primary source content in the personal archives of individual alumni. There's literally no reliable source coverage about it being shown at all -- but the volume of content that can't possibly be supported by any of the listed references is extremely high, thus suggesting that a lot of this is either WP:OR or WP:SPIP. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find the reliable source coverage needed to write and reference the article properly, but the blow it up and start over principle pertains here -- too much of the existing content is both unreferenced and unreferenceable to retain it in this form, because conflict of interest editing is the only possible explanation for how an article can simultaneously contain this much deep detail and this little actual referencing for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Thornton Hall, Toronto and WP:TNT Here's a Toronto Star news article that talked about the private school briefly [1] And someone posted a Toronto Star article about its closure [2] which would indicate significant coverage. Someone can verify its actual appearances in the papers based on that site. The general Thornton Hall should be a disambiguation since there are other Thornton Halls discussed in the Wikipedia such as Thornton Hall, High Coniscliffe (two dab), Nancy Drew: Ghost of Thornton Hall (PTM), and Thornton Watlass Hall (PTM), and a Thornton Hall as mentioned in Cotton-Sheppard baronets. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC) updated 18:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the text is very likely to be original research or copied from a text somewhere. I could comment it out until it can be written and referenced neutrally. But it isn't primary topic for Thornton Hall, as the one in Thornton, Buckinghamshire is more noteworthy [3] and there are other Thornton Halls as found in the Thornton Hall (disambiguation) page I created. That Buckinghamshire one is currently being used as a private school as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT as there's clearly some undisclosed COI editing going on, and only recreate if GNG-worthy sources are provided for Wikipedia editors to examine. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 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 Draftify. Moving to Draft:List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election J04n(talk page) 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election[edit]

List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election (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)

WP:TOOSOON and mostly empty chart of presumptive candidates in an election that's still a year and a half away. As a general rule, most political parties haven't even started selecting their candidates for the next election yet, and won't for at least another year. Three of the five political parties with representation in the current Parliament have zero candidates selected yet, so their columns are completely empty, while one more has zero candidates selected yet either but this prematurely lists a handful of incumbents who have declared that they plan to run again except for one district where it presumptively lists the candidate for a by-election that's going to precede the actual 43rd general election. And for the one party that actually has candidates listed here, it still frequently just lists either incumbents who plan to run again regardless of the fact that there are still 17 months for them to change their minds for personal or professional reasons, and/or multiple declared but as yet unfiled and unselected candidates in pending nomination contests. There's simply no reason for a placeholder election results table to already exist this far in advance of the actual election campaign -- while we've traditionally permitted a base article about the next election (i.e. 43rd Canadian federal election) to exist as soon as the previous one was done counting its beans, the results table has always waited until the election campaign was actually underway. There's no value in this existing as a placeholder page this far in advance, if there are this few confirmed candidates to actually list yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 43rd Canadian federal election. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and soft delete/draftify (unless access remains in redirect's history) per nom's well laid-out argument. In this particular instance, I reckon it shouldn't exist until about a year beforehand. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Elections Canada^[1] there are now seven official Conservative candidates, and numerous nomination candidates who have publicly declared their candidacy. I was planning to change the page today to footnote the various Conservative incumbents who have the right of acclamation (via Conservative Party deadline that passed last November) but have not publicly declared their intention of running again. The Wikipedia:Too_soon criteria do not address elections. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 338 electoral districts nationwide, with four political parties that are likely to have a complete slate of candidates across the country and a fifth that is likely to have a complete slate of candidates across the province of Quebec. That means 1,430 candidates minimum, before you have even accounted for the fact that an unpredictable number of minor candidates, for fringe parties and/or independents, are likely to run as well — so for the sake of argument, let's just spitball 70 fringers, so that the number of candidates across Canada hits exactly 1,500. (It will, in reality, be considerably more than just 70, but for the sake of the math I had to pick a random number.) So one party having seven confirmed candidates equals 0.46 per cent of the total (and only just barely two per cent of its own party slate), which is nowhere near high enough a percentage to suggest that the nationwide results table is already needed this far in advance. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @G. Timothy Walton: - just because candidates have the right of acclamation does not mean they can reliably be determined as the candidates - 18 months is a long time and multiple ones (not just an unanticipated one or two) might decide they don't want to run (or at least run there). Specific sources confirming candidates as actually running I would argue are needed to make clear statements on this timescale. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment @Nosebagbear: - I've changed the page so that all Conservative incumbents without a public commitment to run are listed as unconfirmed nominees with a footnote that they have the right of acclamation; there are a lot of them so it will be a while before I finish slogging through Google and Facebook searches for each one to see if they've confirmed running again. There are a lot of Conservatives who have declared publicly that they want their party's nomination. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and despite their intentions some of them may still not actually run again, for various personal or professional reasons that may range from family matters, to quitting to run for mayor of their hometown or their provincial party, to getting embroiled in a scandal, to outright death. It's WP:CRYSTAL for us to simply presume that an incumbent MP definitively will run again just because they've stated their intention to do so eighteen months before the election. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Maybe move back to draft until sometime this Autumn? That way we can keep it up to date for nominations which happen on the CPC side and move it back to public once the Liberals and NDP start their nomination process'. Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Draftify with no prejudice against timely recreation. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per nom. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 22 May 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. per WP:SKCRIT#3. Two reasons. The nominator here does not provide a reason for nomination—citing someone else's reason (and as theirs, not the nom's own!) is clearly out of process. Secondly, "importance" (or lack thereof) is very much an WP:ATAIDD, per WP:BELONG. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honey garlic sauce[edit]

Honey garlic sauce (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)

A user named Madmoons repeatedly nominated this for PROD, but it was contested. Madmoons does not believe that this is an "important" topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There doesn't seem to be a case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Added a book cite, sauce is notable. No valid rationale for deletion given in neither the PRODs nor here. Sam Sailor 07:49, 15 May 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Linkevičius[edit]

Martynas Linkevičius (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL (the Lithuanian leagues aren't listed) or WP:GNG. Simply being a teammate of LiAngelo Ball doesn't grant notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has enough sources to pass GNG, as a quick Google News search demonstrates. I added two myself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:12, 23 April 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara[edit]

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara (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 about a religious figure does not meet our notability or verifiability requirements. Aside from presenting religious dogma as fact, neither of this article's two sources actually mention this person. I can't find anything more substantial either. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 22 May 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, default to keep. On the one hand, the keep voters relied in part on sources that we later established not to be independent reliable sources. On the other hand, User:Aoziwe makes a valid argument regarding the depth of local sources. The participants advocating delete made good arguments as well, but ultimately the discussion, despite two re-listings, did not successfully generate a consensus one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Faces of Youth Arts[edit]

D'Faces of Youth Arts (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)

Non notable local (Whyalla) interest group. No national coverage. Local awards only. No claims of importance or significance beyond it own locality. Primary sources. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. While the article is spammed with references to local newspapers, there are mentions in other sources as well. E.g. http://arts.sa.gov.au/organisations/dfaces-of-youth-arts https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/c/dfaces-of-whyalla-youth-arts/15574/ https://www.countryarts.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RAF-Grants-2014-October.pdf I haven't found a killer international link, but it's looking reasonable from the sources I have found and the few non-local sources in the article. Ross-c (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two government sites are not independent reliable sources. The Country Arts is clearly labeled as a media release. None of those are any good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Normally I would agree with the NOM on one like this, but while local there is very sufficient sustained non primary coverage for a more in-depth article than usual. WP:ORG gives two criteria for the presumption of notability but like all NSUBJECT guides the converse of not meeting these does NOT imply a presumption of not notable. The article seems to be well enough referenced and the subject seems to have quite a sufficient local profile. It is recognised in some state level Government sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems is not is. Local is local, however many sources there are in the newspaper. It's not difficult to get mentioned in a local newspaper. Local news media is always desperate for fillers. They will even report on a hoe stolen from a garden shed or a missing cat. D'Faces of Youth Arts has not hit nationwide, or even major out-of-state news outlets.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG, while sourcing offered above and in the article is primary or hyper-local. This content belongs on the org's Facebook page, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep largely per Ross and Aoziwe. The organisation has been active for a long time has attracted significant and sustained coverage in the local media and a story in the state-level media [4], and the article has been written in good faith (eg, it's not spammy). As such, I think that this just gets across the line. If we had an article on Arts in Whyalla or similar I'd prefer a merge, but I think that this is a viable article. We certainly have articles on more obscure topics (for instance, all the high schools in this town). Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Now source is very clearly only a trivial mention, nothing significant or sustained there. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate local puff or primary only, nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 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. Sandstein 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

László Z. Karvalics[edit]

László Z. Karvalics (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)

BLP lacking reliable citations, no inline citations. May not pass WP:NBIO due to sources not being given to back up claims made in the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:TNT badly formatted article with no citations, looks like a repost of a CV. Unless improvements are forthcoming, the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 17 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Vercelli[edit]

Renato Vercelli (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)

Very very very close paraphrase of [5] which is the only source extant, and is not independent or RS. I Speedy'd all three for COPYVIO, but only Gemma Vercelli was accepted as such. So putting both Giulio Romano Vercelli and Renato Vercelli up for AfD. The museum collections are unverifiable, and seem likely to be inflated, as I can't find anything legit about them online or in databases. BTW not this painter by a similar name [6] Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 29 April 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Available Mathematical Software[edit]

Guide to Available Mathematical Software (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)

The topic of this article is a web site. There are no secondary sources that attest the notability of this site. The web site lists mathematical software as installed on the servers of NIST. It has little interest for practitioners outside NIST. An article about this web site has even less interest. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. My opinion on this might be stronger if we had anything more than the thinnest of stubs here. In any case, the nomination isn't particularly accurate (specifically: this is a public-facing service, not software internal to NIST). In any case, this looks like secondary source coverage, and this journal article is technically not independent (author is a NIST researcher), but represents something of an analysis of the system. Other sources seem forthcoming from both Books and Scholar searches (although there are some false positives, especially with the journal search). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of book sources on this, some of which I just added to the article. It's a stub now, but that's not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the first couple of refs are a little short and might be deemed mentions (though focused ones) but the others are more than sufficient to provide WP:SIGCOV. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Respectable stub on a legitimate topic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - ok, I see your arguments, and the little improvements of the article, and therefore I withdraw my deletion proposal. -- Oisguad (talk) 21:12, 15 May 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. The somewhat predictable participants somewhat predictably disagree about whether this is an OR/SYNTH aggregation of incidents, or a topic that is properly sourced and described as such. This can't be resolved by admin fiat, much like the underlying real-word conflict. The acrimony in this discussion will probably need discretionary sanctions, which I'll look at separately. Sandstein 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Israeli stone throwing[edit]

Jewish Israeli stone throwing (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, (long tagged for notability, also see discussions on talk page,) is a COATRACK from which to hang a series of unrelated instances in which a Jew living in Mandatory Palestine or in Israel has thrown stones. But is this even a TOPIC? I can find no INDEPTH analysis showing that Jewish Israeli stone throwing exists as a topic. Article is divided among, "Historical" covering dramatic moments during Israel's war of independence when, for example, the defenders of Convoy of 35 ran out of ammo and resorted to defending themselves with stones. "By settlers", which should be discussed at Israeli settler violence. And "Ultra-Orthodox incidents", covering rocks thrown by Haredi agitators at Sabbath-breakers, immodestly dressed women, and so forth. The incidents listed in the article have nothing in common, certainly not a common topic. Moreover they are sourced to news reports merely show that stones were thrown. To keep an article, we need to have a coherent topic and sources that address that INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I agree the topic doesn't seem worthy enough of inclusion. It's a hodgepog of items intended to force a topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sir Joseph above.--יניב הורון (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You people are hypocrites who have no shame. A coatrack about Jews throwing stones should be deleted yesterday, but the corresponding coatrack about Palestinians throwing stones is an important article that must be developed. According to the documentary record, Jews and their ancestors have been throwing stones in the Land of Israel for as long as they have lived there, but you have the gall to ask whether it's "a thing"? Seriously, did your parents drop you on your heads as infants? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please try to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Joseph, condescension is also a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is going to take some time to differentiate sources discussing Palestinian stone throwing between Jewish, even when you literally search for "Jewish stone throwing". Nonetheless, news cites discuss it and specific instances [7][8][9], and journals do as well. I agree with Malik that it is highly hypocritical to ask whether this is "a thing"; I have no doubt that the nom would gladly vote keep for an article on an instance (let alone the topic overall) of Palestinian stone throwing, yet chooses to ignore the notability of this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide a link, or name of the "journal" article, your link leads only to the library at Penn State. Your other sources argue for redirecting this page to Israeli settler violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's also not a "thing" as you say to have this article because while there most certainly may be instances of stone throwing by Jews in Israel, it's not really ingrained in culture and methods as it is for the Palestinians. We don't need an article on every form of violence, the reason why Palestinian stone throwing is notable is because it is a distinct form notable to the area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read the sources provided above, as well as the recent and currently ongoing entries on the TP, you see that, on the contrary stone throwing is very much ingrained in at least two Israeli Jewish subcultures: the Haredi and the settler cultures.XavierItzm (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- plenty of indepth sources already exist in the article. In fact, far more sources exist for this than the average article that the nominator argues should be kept at AfD. As others have stated above, seems to be a politically motivated nomination in attempt to present a one-sided view of these incidents.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To prove my point, E.M. Gregory just created this article about a single event, but somehow thinks an article with an overview of multiple events is inappropriate. There is a clear double standard here to create articles that make Palestinians look bad while at the same time delete all articles that make Israelis look bad.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and better yet Merge with Palestinian stone throwing. Stone throwing does seem to be a cultural thing to do in Israel and associated occupied territories as a well-ingrained custom, at least among some groups living there. The article features very-well sourced Jewish Orthodox (Haredi) stone throwing, for example. I think we all can agree that it is only small minorities that practice this rather notorious custom, but small minority customs is no grounds for sanitizing the Wikipedia. I mean, we do have several articles on transgenderism in the U.S., for example, and no-one argued for deletion just because a only a very tiny percentage of U.S. people are transgender. Likewise, insofar as there are Jews in Israel who for decades engage in routine stone throwing, it is a fair article to have. But I do think it is unfortunate to segregate each Israeli article into two. I would just merge into a single "stone throwing in Israel and occupied territories" article. XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this article was started by Nishidani the principal editor of Palestinian stone-throwing. Lots of discussion on the archived talk pages show that a merge to that article won't fly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very unfortunate that there isn't a consensus for merging. In that case a keep looks like the only option.XavierItzm (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• XavierItzm, you note above that this article is about stone-throwing within "two Israeli Jewish subcultures: the Haredi and the settler cultures." But given that the Haredi subculture throws stones for highly focuses reasons (at women holding a type of prayer service they disapprove of, or at gay parades,) while the fringe of the settler movement throws stones in as a tit-for-tat response to Palestinian stone throwing, you need ot explain in what sense these two things constitute a single topic? Logic seems to dictate that we cover settler rock-throwing at Israeli settler violence, and cver Haredi stone-throwing at Haredi political violence, Haredi stone-throwing or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure one option is exclusive of another. Generally in Wikipedia one seeks for the untrained seeker to easily find information, and then follow links if so desired. Certainly one could have a page on "Jewish Israeli stone-throwing" and link to more detail on the proper subsections of Settler Violence and of Haredi Violence, or vice-versa. This is the solution adopted in the "public toilets" page, for example: just because Pissoir is a very specific (and pluri-millenial) example of public toilet, it does not mean that the Pissoir page gets deleted; on the contrary, "public toilets" links to Pissoir which has more detail on urinary-only public toilets from Roman times to the present and yet pissoirs are also discussed on the public toilets page. Borrowing again from the Pissoir analogy, historical Jewish stone-throwing from Palestine Mandate times probably fits better here than under Settler or under Haredi violence.XavierItzm (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian stone-throwing#Settler reactions covers the stone-throwing by Israeli settlers in depth and detail. Subhead was already there when Nishidani started this page, making it appear that Nishidani's motives were WP:POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section provides the narrative that Israeli only throw stones in self-defense. You are throwing a lot of accusations @Nishidani:, but your nomination of this article for deletion seems very WP:POINTy to me, especially since you just created Killing of Esther Ohana.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article was created from the parallel Palestinian stone-throwing article because several editors there objected to the information re Jewish Israeli stone-throwing I entered there per WP:NPOV. E.M Gregory with a record of writing up immediately articles to document Palestinian violence, stone throwing,etc. dislikes this reminder that what he finds appalling,sufficiently so to warrant a wiki page, is also quite common, esp. among West Bank settlers. You can'ìt have it both ways: objecting to a section on Jewish stone throwing in the West Bank on the Palestinian stone-throwing page, and, when the material is moved to its own separate page, object to the existence of that page on wikipedia, testifies only to bias and distaste. The request it be deleted is a patent abuse of our obligations to be neutral (i.e.e covering both sides particularly when the behaviour is identical).The phenomenal is far more common than our page so far documents, and occurs almost on a daily basis among settlers targeting Palestinian farmers, as anyone who keeps tuned to reportage on Youtube can see. And EMG, you should have notified me you proposed deletion of my work.Had it not been for the courtesy and procedural rectitude of Rusf10, this would probably have been disappeared before I noticed, also because I hadn't been notified to argue on behalf of its retention.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While E.M. Gregory didn't break any rules by not notifying you, it is bad form to create an AfD without notifying the page creator (especially when it is such a contentious issue). I always notify when I create an AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With the exception of the last two sources (one of which is a rather primary travel warning) none of the sources discuss the topic. What we do have is multiple individual incidents strung together - in which an Israeli (or Palestinian pre 48) Jew threw a stone. As such, connection of the strung together incidents to a topic is WP:OR. Settler violence is already covered in Israeli settler violence. I suspect Haredi violence may be notable standalone. Ethiopian-Israeli (essentially once incident) probably not. All the various sub sets are not discussed jointly in RS, and arise/occur in completely different circumstances. As such we fail GNG since the sources do not address the topic (of Jewish Israeli stone throwing).Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "none of the sources discuss the topic"? For example, ref #20, to cite just one example, specifically addresses the entirety of issue, including Ethiopian Jews, Haredi Jews, and settler Jews:
«And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.
Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again.
And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.
And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv. »^[2].
Clearly this is an issue which Israelis in Israel look at as a whole, and is not a series of unrelated news events, as you propose. XavierItzm (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I missed 20. However it is op-edish and in the context of legislation enacted to counter Arab stone throwing. I contend that Jewish Israeli are not used as a set, widely. Stone throwing in Israel might.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An opinion piece by a non-notable writer that ran in a low-circulation newspaper at one edge of the Israeli political spectrum is not representative of how "Israelis in Israel look at" anything. You are sort of proving the point that sources are just not out there for this as a subject. Haredi stone throwing, Israeli settler violence, and Palestinian stone throwing, now, those are coherent topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, Icewhiz, I must remind you what all RS state and everyone bar yourself apparently knows here, the West Bank (and Jerusalem in international law for that matter) is not in Israel, and therefore suggesting as a reformulation 'Stone Throwing in Israel' for material that deals with events technically beyond Israel's recognized sovereignty is a non-sequitur, or non-starter.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An I used Jewish Israeli because they do the stone throwing unlike Palestinian Israelis who are 20% of Israelis and not know for hurling strones at West Bank Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EM Gregory you are used double standards, just as you write a stub on (tragic as it was) a barely notable inciodent (several unarmed Palestinians are shot every week: we do not memorialize each case) Ohana as victim of Palestinian stone throwing while pressing to delete an general article on similar behaviour from the other ethnicity. And here, while you used Arutz Sheva a notorious settler POV pushing rag to source the Ohana article, you now say Haaretz, the best internatioonally acknowledged source of Israeli liberal Zionis opinion is a neglibible source.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not twist my words. (I described Kaplan Sommer as a nonnotable writer and described Haaretz accurately; it is popular internationally, not among Israelis. Arutz Shava, which has a large circulation in Israel, is reliable on a fact about the establishment and motivation of a West Bank settlement.)I have argued consistently for the material on settler stone throwing to be redirected to Israeli settler violence. And that Haredi stone belongs in an article on Haredi political violence, or a similar title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Arutz Sheva has been adjudicated at the RSN as not reliable on facts. A large circulation never translates into RS, as you must know. Were that true, English tabloids, party papers in China, etc.etc.etc. would automatically qualify. Arutz Sheva, do you read it? peddles conspiracy theories about every one from Obama to Palestinians and Arabs and employs a known plagiarist, Giulio Meotti.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - we already have an Israeli settler violence which covers the West Bank. I do not see why we would separate "Jewish Israeli" as a separate religion from Druze, Christian, Muslim - or groups such as illegal migrants - in a an article on stone throwing in Israel. Such a division - is not borne out by the sources (even the Haaretz source mentioned above - was covering how new legislation (which would not be in the West Bank, where this would not be in effect) - would affect both Jews and Arabs).Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards again. We have dozens of articles already on Palestinian political violence, but EM Gregory wanted to write an article on Palestinian stone-throwing. Now you say that a corresponding article to the latter, Jewish Israeli stone throwing, is unnecessary because we already have Israeli settler violence. So what is being done here by editors is to keep creating numerous new pages on Palestinian violence, while deleting any expansion, per NPOV, of the parallel phenomenon from the other community. If you want specifics on a sub-topic, specifically, Palestinian stone throwing, you can't get hysterical over the creation of an analogous page on Jewish Israeli stone throwing, which is just as common. It's a blatant manipulation of Wikipedia to create a glaring imbalance in coverage and the objections are all subjective pettifoggery. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NPOV, and the obvious double standard exemplified by this AfD. --NSH001 (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Malik Shabazz and NSH001. nableezy - 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Icewhiz - this seems to be a list of unrelated events and incidents, synthetically collated by the article creator, but lacking any real source treating this as a notable topic in itself. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Malik Shabazz and NSH001. Oh boy, this is the Israeli apartheid-article wars all over again (Recall ...those who made, and wanted to keep the French apartheid, and any other nations apartheid article.....while at the very same time fighting tooth and nail to delete the Israeli apartheid article...) (Hmmm....I guess renaming is the next step, eh?) Huldra (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the nomination is defective. The nomination alleges that «The incidents listed in the article have nothing in common, certainly not a common topic. Moreover they are sourced to news reports merely show that stones were thrown». This is incorrect. The article is not based on "news reports." Currently the article cites the following nine books:
  1. Book: Bethell, Nicholas (1979). The Palestine Triangle.
  2. Book: Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism
  3. Book: Samuel C. Heilman, Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry
  4. Book: W. Gordon Lawrence, Tongued with Fire: Groups in Experience
  5. Book:Roger Friedland; Richard Hecht (2000). To Rule Jerusalem.
  6. Book: Jonathan Boyarin, Palestine and Jewish History: Criticism at the Borders of Ethnography
  7. Book: Nora L. Rubel, Doubting the Devout: The Ultra-Orthodox in the Jewish American Imagination
  8. Book: Lev Luis Grinberg, Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine: Democracy Versus Military Rule
  9. Book: Adam LeBor, City of Oranges: Arabs and Jews in Jaffa
  Furthermore, the article cites the following government, non-governmental organization books, and scholarly articles, which are not news:
  1. Government: U.S. Govm't Printing Office, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009
  2. NGO: Human Rights Watch, Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District
  3. Scholarly Journal: Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2005; Benny Morris, The Historiography of Deir Yassin
  There are, in addition, 27 citations from news sources. News sources should not be disparaged. News sources are routinely cited on Wikipedia articles. The sources on this article come from unquestionable WP:RS, such as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Los Angeles Times, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, the Times of Israel, etc.
  In conclusion, we have a defective nomination which does not withstand an examination of the actual sources. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm the Palestinian one is better, but I'm sure this can be developed with the help of all editors involved. If I didn't have to walk someone's dog tonight I'd write up Stone throwing in the Aeneid, starting with that wonderful epic simile in Book 1 where Neptune calms the waves after that storm, and ending with Turnus being unable to hurl the mighty rock at Aeneas. I'm oping that all of you will help find other examples. And maybe then we can move on to the Iliad? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Boy! is that refreshingly thoughtful! I'm going to get my mental rocks off today, a busy one off-line taking up your hint about stones in classical literature (I've done some work on the Biblical stuff, but no time to add it here, and had I done so, it would have been removed as WP:OR). So my day begins, as I make my way henceforth into the heart of Rome, with Polyphemus hurling half a cliff Odysseus's way:

ὣς ἐφάμην, ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα χολώσατο κηρόθι μᾶλλον,

ἧκε δ᾽ ἀπορρήξας κορυφὴν ὄρεος μεγάλοιο,

κὰδ δ᾽ ἔβαλε προπάροιθε νεὸς κυανοπρῴροιο

τυτθόν, ἐδεύησεν δ᾽ οἰήιον ἄκρον ἱκέσθαι, . .

• If one looks at the Palestinian article, which is constantly being gutted after I tried to built it up into a comprehensive overview from the POV stub it began as, with stuff like this removed, though the eraser has now created at least 2 articles (Killing of Esther Ohana and Death of Binyamin Meisner) one will observe that the editor proposing deletion here is engaged in building his case against Palestinians for throwing stones at Jewish Israelis, while systematically contesting articles which document the obverse. Blatant POV pushing in the interests of WP:Systemic bias. It would be easy to mimic this POV pushing by writing a stub like the Ohana one on Edmond Ghanem, to blue link it to this article, but one exercises restraint, with the result that the information re the latter, a perfect instance of murdering a Palestinian by dropping a rock on his head, is suppressed from this article. That's the way these articles are consistently gamed. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources which clearly passes WP:GNG.

As per Malik Shabazz, Nishidani and NSH001, I agree with the apparent editorial hypocrisy/double standard being applied here as this appears to be a politically-motivated nomination in attempt to present a one-sided view of these incidents against NPOV. Tanbircdq (talk)

• Delete per Drmies. wumbolo ^^^ 15:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notability of the topic for a stand-alone artcle has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Not all phenomena in the Israeli Palestinian conflict can be equated. Take the example of Edmond Ghanem, brought above as an instance of "Jewish Israeli stone throwing. However, According to the Observer, Edmond Ghanem died when a "block of concrete," that "had been used to weigh down the look-out tent" of a rooftop Israeli Army observation post "tipped over by accident" and fell on him. Sources do exist to support Haredi stone-throwing and Israeli settler violence, as topics, but Sources do not link these two dissimilar phenomena into a "Jewish Israeli" phenomenon. There is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject of Jewish Israeli stone throwing. This page is WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NOTADVOCATE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city: 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.' And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18–23 So I guess Moses was just talking shit before he led the Israelites to the Land of Israel? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And I suppose the authors of the New Testament made up the story about Jesus saving a woman from being stoned by "the scribes and the Pharisees" (i.e., the founders of Rabbinic Judaism), right? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment demonstrates that this article is a COATRACK on which editors hang a motley array of topics. Stoning is a separate topic. (We do not, of course, include the Stoning of the Devil in Palestinian stone-throwing although, of course, numbers of Palestinians participate every year.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 May 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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Machinery (professional wrestling)[edit]

Heavy Machinery (professional wrestling) (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)

Non-notable tag team Galatz^Talk 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:11, 18 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018[edit]

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 (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)

Generally WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT, why can't this be in Myanmar National League/ 2018 Myanmar National League or the individual club as player roster changes. (2017 club roster to 2018 club roster). Not keen for merge as nothing notable to merge, come on individual sign in and out reasons??? No need for redirect as rarely this will be search upon. Quek157 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:LISTN. Also feel free to add List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2017 and List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2016 to this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 19 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meganne Young[edit]

Meganne Young (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)

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too soon. Not enough coverage or substantial roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of sources to currently support GNG/BASIC, but hopefully just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sam Sailor 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 22 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony (Icha Kavons song)[edit]

Testimony (Icha Kavons song) (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:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Otegbade[edit]

Kemi Otegbade (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)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: She is not the primary focus of the few rs that mentions her name, the likes of Nigeria Best Forum can't validate anything. Tone of article also promote subject in an unverifiable subjective manner. Non notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After further search, I discovered she was the executive producer of a notable reality show, and her management of the show led to some controversies. Aside the Vanguard interview, which doesn't seem independent, nothing else seem substantial enough to make this PR woman notable, at least not for now. Article is also filled with puffery. Still sticking with delete. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems like she has had some notable activities under "Other Activities" section. There are also several proper references from valid sources.Peter303x (talk)

• Comment - How does any of that support inclusion via WP:BIO or WP:N? reddogsix (talk) 17:31, 15 May 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. Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of startups in Florida[edit]

List of startups in Florida (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 has adds no context and hasn't been updated in the two months since it's creation. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:LISTN and is the definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could have thousands of entries covering the entire history of the state, and will be a spam magnet. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jytdog. I can't see the point of a list of startups by any classification, including by location. I've added all eight to List of Florida companies, where they'll still belong once they're out of startup stage. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. No clear inclusion criteria and no sources to verify. Ajf773 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. There must be thousands of startups annually, in this one of the most populous states, most of which are not notable and in fact fail. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "List of X in Y" article that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Better to just have the entries in List of Florida companies. Sam Sailor 18:34, 21 May 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 rdelete. Steve Smith (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National APIA Panhellenic Association[edit]

National APIA Panhellenic Association (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)

Apparently not notable by our new and more stringent standards for organisations (and probably not by the old ones either). Three passing mentions on GNews, nothing in GNews archive, nothing on JSTOR. There are a number of passing mentions in books, but I don't see anything resembling in-depth coverage; the only mention in this book about diversity in sororities/fraternities is apparently attribution for some "advance praise" in the back-cover blurb. A redirect may be a viable alternative to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Seems like a legit organization, but there are absolutely no references to support anything. Perhaps with proper references, it can be kept. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 15 May 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 Mio Technology#PDA navigation. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mio P560[edit]

Mio P560 (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 product also poor sources. Article style and clone are not per WP:MOS policy. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yeah, sources are pretty poor (including an article from WP), and the article is poorly formatted. But I found sources for verification and notability:
  [10], [11], [12] and [13].
  

The article would require to be rewritten, but wouldn't be a problem for me. I already leave my "Possible keep" here... Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 19:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I rewrote the article and added sources. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 20:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete- sources are promotional though secondary, and in depth. so no independence. specification based sources are press releases style. with this corpdepth is not there. Quek157 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, or redirect I looked at the current version of the article. It's marginal as far as both sourcing and content goes, but I don't think it's so bad it needs to be deleted. At a minimum, redirect to Mio Technology#PDA navigation, where it's mentioned, per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above, that the best WP:ATD I can think of as WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly not met --Quek157 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mio Technology#PDA navigation - only decent source is ZDNet, others are press releases or trivial mentions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 22 May 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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Street Profits[edit]

Street Profits (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)

Non-notable tag team Galatz^Talk 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Capri[edit]

Sierra Capri (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)

An actress that has only one noble role, does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. Not only that, there is only one reliable source in the article. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbtocth (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 15:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 15:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least Merge. A leading role on one series is technically not enough and while she is noted and interviewed the coverage is perhaos not enough to meet the notability guideline but I favor keeping the article independent. She's an up and coming star and her notoriety will only grow with time. If we're going to be sticklers for the rukes then a merge to the show where she and her role are covered would be the appropriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She certainly does not meet the standard notability guidelines for actors. There are barely any coverage on her and interviews with her. Fails the WP:GNG, too. -- LACaliNYC✉ 23:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too Soon. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games owned by Microsoft Studios on Nintendo platforms[edit]

List of video games owned by Microsoft Studios on Nintendo platforms (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)

Trivial list, publisher X on platform Y? That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Trivial, short list (which would probably be shorter if cleaned up - some of these entries seem dubious - Halo DS went unreleased, so it doesn't fit, and games like Blue Dragon Plus were neither developed or published by Microsoft or their owned companies at all.) Conceptually, could be covered in prose at Rare (company) or a Microsoft based video game article, as most entries revolve around these 2 companies - but not as a standalone list like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sergecross73, not a notable intersection. Even if I was just flabbergasted and awed to see a Nintendo console front and center on-stage during a Microsoft E3 presentation (Minecraft port). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This should be covered just fine by List of Microsoft Studios video games. Nomader (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial and non-notable grouping. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even a category on it. wumbolo ^^^ 14:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable and trivial. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavus Zesch[edit]

Gustavus Zesch (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 to meet the subject-specific Notability criteria for military personnel (WP:SOLDIER) and there's no evidence in my WP:BEFORE search of anything more than trivial, passing mentions or run-of-the-mill "This person was here" type comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable soldier. Quis separabit? 15:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:SOLDIER. The current sources are just name checks and contain no significant coverage of him or his actions. Jbh ^Talk 16:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only passing mentions here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't pass SOLDIER. Some congressional hearings and the like. Not enough coverage for SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a clear example where consensus can get it wrong. There are detailed accounts of his command actions during the Civil War. A Merge / Redirect to 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry#Commanders would at least be consistent with WP:PRESERVE. All of the commanders of the platoon are notable and Zesch in particular. He commanded a unit of 1848er veterans who fought for the free German States and then during some of the earliest and most important battles of the Civil War on up to Vicksburg. He commanded 6 companies in the Louisiana bayou on a raid. His unit was presented a flag by the lady Turners of Leavenworth. It is part of the state historical society's collection. How do I know all of this? Various reliable sources. The idea that there isn't substantial coverage of this fellow is absurd especially considering not every source is readily available online for events that took place 160 some odd years ago. The article has been greatly expanded with many additional sources since the initial delete votes. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you @FloridaArmy: - read through WP:NSOLDIER before you create any more articles about military personnel. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." And indeed he satisfies other parts of the policy page as well. First company organized from his area. Important role in significant battles. Etc. Etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which of the 8 criteria you think he meets. Never mind, consensus will decide. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no reason to not WP:AGF with the offline sources, which show a clear pass of WP:GNG. This is a worthwhile stub article that could grow as researchers find more information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paulmcdonald: you have said the same about another FloridaArmy creation currently at AfD. What offline sources? - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't ask me, I'm assuming good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's... something. "Assume Good Faith" isn't some sort of blind suicide pact. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF isn't a lawn mower or a chocolate shake either. WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." and since I see no reason to think otherwise, I will... assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "the offline sources... show a clear pass of WP:GNG" is a bit daft when you haven't seen them and don't even know that they exist. Never mind eh. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I had read them, I wouldn't have to "assume" anything. I see no reason to believe that the contributor to the article has not read them and that they do not support the article. Therefore... I "assume" "good" "faith" -- Assuming good faith in sources requires having not read them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong here, Paul, and if you are going to persist in using such logic at AfD, as you have done recently, then a topic ban might be in order. AGF is not a suicide pact and your logic opens the floodgates for disruptive editing etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient notability to pass WP:SOLDIER. Platoon commanders are not presumed notable, and I could source every captain in the First AIF better than this from the AIF database. Not impressed by the fact that fn 1 does not cover the cited fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say there were no databases during the American Civil War, although catalogs of the deployments have since been compiled by historians. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or during the Great War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a platoon commander (led by a Lieutenant) but a Company Commander. And his unit was composed of German immigrants including veterans of the 1848 revolutions. And there's actually quite a lot about Zesch including specifics on his combat roles as a commander. This new article has been greatly expanded and new sources added since the original nomination. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can appreciate how frustrating this must be for you but the guidelines are clear. Failing to meet the WP:NSOLDIER guideline is bad enough, but the failure to meet the General Notability Guideline is the clincher. You can't gather lots and lots of trivial mentions and hope they add up to something. It just won't work. The sort of depth required would be an in-depth profile of him - not just a collection of run-of-the-mill stuff. There's nothing to support a stand-alone article & I'm concerned that your energies are going to waste. Have you considered adding a paragraph about him to the article of his parent regiment? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will point out that WP:NSOLDIER is a guideline, not a rule or a policy. Sometimes guidelines are wrong, and they don't supercede or negate larger/broader guidelines or rules such as WP:GNG (a guideline in this case). I believe inclusion of this little article makes Wikipedia better so I'd like to add to my reasoning the policy ignore all rules. While we don't just "throw that one around" in general, I've no problem applying it here because of the off-line research mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient depth of coverage to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or maybe Redirect to 1st Kansas - Looking at results on newspapers.com as well as the article itself, I don't see enough to make this encyclopedic. For instance, the birth year, death date, and muster dates are based, I think, on primary sources (although here is a burial permit ref). However, Zesch was the senior captain of the regiment and said to be one of the most senior captains in the volunteer army at the end of the war (not sure this is true, as he It seems he wasn't in the army at the end of the war).[14] His was also reported to be the first company organized of the 1st Kansas and, as the Steuben Guards, the first company ready for service in Kansas.[15][16] I think some of the effort that has gone into this article could have gone into the article on the 1st Kansas, which is basically a reprint of Dyers Compendium. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would deletion be approproate before redirecting? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Newspapers.com include German language media? As a Turnverein, coverage of his early life and role in the revolutions of 1849 would not have been covered in U.S. media. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And an unfortunate fact for foreing names is they are often misspelled. So I have seen him listed as Gustovus. Zish or Zisch. And his burial marker appears to go with Gustav. But even with the problems and his European origin we know a great deal about his milotary career and company. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant weak delete or redirect. Newspaper.com does index some German language papers, but all of those are American ones (they are largely from Illinois or Missouri, in my experience). They are usually (always?) written in blackletter, so the OCR is iffy. I used variations on the name that I could think of in my searches, but thanks for pointing that out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:47, 21 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Grace[edit]

Scarlet Grace (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 yet notable per WP:NACTOR: no significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources online. IMDB entry says she will have a minor role in an upcoming film, but there's no significant coverage of that online either. She's made a good start to her career, but WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopaedia article. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too soon although she has work coming down the pike. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that it is a little too soon. Maybe with a little more coverage in the future, this can be reconsidered. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage. -- LACaliNYC✉ 23:50, 20 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskate Records[edit]

Cheapskate Records (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)

Seems like advertisement and all the sources are from same site and its not remarkable too. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable independent label that released charting hits by variois groups. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple notable artists, charted on lists, sources are NOT all from same source. Flat-out meets GNG, in addition to being an encyclopedic topic of value to discographers, music historians, and musicologists. One of the "more important independent labels" according to NMUSIC#5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable record label with many releases and references. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 15 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmudin Rayani[edit]

Nazmudin Rayani (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)

Other than the announcement of his award, and very little of that, no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Not sure receiving Canada's second highest civilian award meets notability criteria. If this were a discussion of a military man, the second highest award wouldn't qualify them. So, based on his not meeting WP:GNG, this should probably be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The article was created in 2009 yet there is still minuscule info about this person out there. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• He also goes by Naz. He has been covered subatantially in two articles. I don't know if it's enough. As the founder and owner of a regional pharmacy chain, community leader, award recipient, and.prominent member of a minority religious community I would probably lean to Weak Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only the award seems to have gained him any coverage and, as noted above, it's probably not enough to get him over the notability line. Eagleash (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Order of Canada is a valid notability claim if a person can be properly referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG for the work he did to earn the honour — but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced better than this. For some reason, the two news articles being cited here come up as blank pages when I try to view them, so I had to run a ProQuest search to find them — and what I found was that while "Bringing people together" is substantively enough about Rayani to start counting toward GNG, "Pharmacy's new name reflects founder's community spirit" is not. But we require more than just one GNG-counting source before GNG is actually passed, and I couldn't find anywhere near enough other sources about him to build a GNG case — I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but few to no sources about him beyond "Bringing people together". Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 20 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bray Ketchum[edit]

Bray Ketchum (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)

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Only coverage routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability. Ravenswing 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The WP:NHOCKEY guideline does not say anything about women's ice hockey players. This should be discussed at the project when a female ice hockey player is notable or not. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It does, it requires them to play at the world championships or the olympics. It has been discussed at the project and other than the world championships or the olympics they were purposefully left out NHOCKEY. Otherwise it is left up to GNG which this player also fails to meet so whether or not NHOCKEY mentions them would be moot anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sabbatino: for reference, the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link to the discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yosemiter - can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues? Hmlarson (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The men's leagues are constantly discussed, just look through the archives of WT:HOCKEY, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment, and WT:NSPORTS. The discussions are probably well into the double digits for how many times what is or isn't on NHOCKEY has been discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can either of you provide an example of a men's league where the same criteria Yosemiter used to guide the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey was analyzed similarly and added to WP:NHOCKEY? Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hmlarson: I would suggest going through User Talk:Dolovis archives for all the nominations and AfDs that led to the strict version of NHOCKEY (the user literally created thousands of sub-stubs and redirects for low-level pro and high amateur hockey players). In other words, it developed over several years of AfDs and random discussion. In other discussions, which we have all the time, in reverse chronological order: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#So here we go again. Damn it., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive68#Enough is frigging enough., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive62#More NHOCKEY tweaking, alas ..., Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_23#Ice hockey leagues notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 17#NHOCKEY #3 and #7, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16#Tightening the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY etc.

  The discussion I linked first was one I started, specifically in order to hurry up the process with an in-depth study of players who would qualify for NHOCKEY by adding the only pro women's league at the time. (I am a research engineer, case studies are my bread and butter.) It should be noted, I was comparing it primarily to the ECHL, a mid-level North American pro league that we say only meets NHOCKEY#3. I found the women had far less coverage, if any in actual news sites, than the men of the same awards each season. It is unfortunate, but that does appear to be the situation right now. Until then, GNG and BLP are the standards. Yosemiter (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but none of those answer my question. Hmlarson (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hmlarson: Your question was: "can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues?"

  My answer was: "here is some links over the several years where we discussed men's leagues and which qualify based on observations over even more years of AfDs." Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are wasting your time. Her typical method of operation is to ask questions and then when you answer ask another and another trying to filibuster the discussion. She has an extreme bias and would likely keep any article that featured a woman. I don't know that I have ever seen her admit there is no sourcing for an article on a woman and vote delete, even in situations where is was crazy obvious the article was delete worthy. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Yosemiter question was clarified, "Can either of you provide an example of a men's league where the same criteria Yosemiter used to guide the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey was analyzed similarly and added to WP:NHOCKEY?" It doesn't exist - is that right, Djsasso + Yosemiter? Hmlarson (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC

• And as you were told there are literally hundreds of discussions on this topic. If for some reason you want one exactly like that one discussion you are going to have to go to the places we pointed out to look for them. I can't see anyone wanting to waste their time looking for it for you. Especially since it holds no relevance to the discussion at hand. -DJSasso (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmlarson I'm sorry, but I am not about to link 1000 AfDs for you (hell, more than half are probably linked on Dolovis talk page archives, so start there). I did provide you discussions that were the outcome of said AfDs though. As I said, folks have discussed NHOCKEY for men's leagues ad nauseam. If you won't WP:AGF on the decade worth of discussion, then I really can't help you. Yosemiter (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of engaging in an unproductive mud-slinging match with Djsasso, let's review:

1. This discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey, initiated by Yosemiter and cited above has a consensus of editors in support of adding to NWHL to the notability guideline, but appears to have been derailed by the same editor by creating a standard/analysis of inclusion that just doesn't exist for men's leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you reading the same discussion, multiple people disagreed, there was very much no consensus. Secondly, that standard of inclusion/analysis is used on all sports criteria on NSPORTS. In fact there is one on the talkpage there right now for NBOXING with the exact same standard of analysis. This isn't just some attempt to block them out like you are trying to play up. NHOCKEY is meant to show when GNG can be met. There is no evidence that even all of the top award winners in the NWHL can meet GNG let alone the players who only play a single game. The standard criteria used on the NSPORTS talk page to make a change to any of the guidlines is that 99.999% of players that would be affected by the new criteria need to be able to meet GNG. The discussion analysis Yosemiter, Ravenswing and 18abruce did showed that not even the top players in the women's league were guaranteed to make it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 1) It was a discussion to look into a proposal, not an actual proposal. I wanted facts, not a vote. 2) There was no "consensus" (Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote). There were editors who chimed in with "Support" because WP:ILIKEIT and there were editors who were actually doing what I asked about, discussing if the top NWHL players met GNG. The editors actually discussing the sources and references, and not just voting, more or less came to the conclusion that it was still premature to have a hard guideline in NHOCKEY for inclusion outside of the Worlds and Olympics. Per NSPORTS, we should never write a guideline that might make it more likely to conflict with GNG as GNG supersedes NSPORTS.

  (Maybe I should note, that you to never answered my critique below. Please provide evidence of GNG for the AfD at hand. We have gotten far off topic here.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. Player plays in National Women's Hockey League (NWHL), highest league in the United States, and the first pro women's hockey league in North America. Article could use improved referencing, expansion, including more links to season articles and not deletion, per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hmlarson: You are right it could use improved referencing, which is exactly what it needs in order to meet GNG per WP:SOURCES. As GNG trumps WP:SPORTSPERSON, and GNG is nomination reason, let us keep it there.

    So here is a little WP:BEFORE. A simple G-News search does not kick up much outside of the New York-area specific hockey blog/news (self-described as "Blueshirt Banter is a fan driven blog" and Ice Garden is "@sbnation women's hockey blog"), a single short quote in the NY Times, and a few mentions here and there by name. Best I found of significant depth is this article about her contributions to charity, but barely talks about her as a hockey player.

    As for ATD, what would the alternative to deletion be? ATD mainly address content, not notability per the statement: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. If notability of the content is in question, the other options are tagging (the tag would be Template:Notability so it does not fix it), merging/redirect (to where?), incubate (possibly, but not likely to be any different in 6 months), or archiving. None appear to apply here.

    I will not vote delete/keep on this, but if you say keep because WP:ITSIMPORTANT, I would usually prefer a bit of supportive sources behind it. Yosemiter (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the correct guideline is WP:NHOCKEY, which this person fails. More importantly, they also fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as she clearly fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Mithran[edit]

P.S Mithran (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)

Debuting director who fails to meet WP:NDIRECTOR and is almost certainly subject to WP:TOOSOON. P.S Mithran directed Irumbu Thirai (2018 film), which was released on 11 May 2018, and seems to have no other credits to his name. This is in violation of WP:NDIRECTOR, which mandates that creative professionals have a widely-cited claim to notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Also completely unsourced and so violates WP:BLPPROD. David.moreno72 08:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:CREATIVE; unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:27, 21 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holly M. Lewis[edit]

Holly M. Lewis (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)

While her book may or may not be notable, this assistant prof does not appear to meet notability criteria. The commonality of her name made WP:BEFORE difficult, but I could not find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show she meets WP:GNG. All of the coverage are reviews about her book. And she clearly does not meet WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think she or her book meet notability guidelines fpr Wikipedia content. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fail WP:NPROF; fails WP:AUTHOR, philosophy book put out by a minor publisher that got no reviews on JSTOR, only a couple of online reviews in very small socialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regret the article is terrible and maybe it is WP:TOOSOON for this professor but reviews for her book are very enthusiastic and I must regret losing the bio of someone who in her spare time wrote, directed, and produced a film about The Terrorist She Freaks of Texas[17]. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The book has multiple published reviews and there are reliable sources (but not reviews that I could find) for the film. And the Concordia source also looks reliable and in-depth. I think there's a case to be made for WP:CREATIVE, but it's a weak one. Incidentally, her work on Plato (which I removed from the article as too minor and boring to highlight — it's merely additional material for a translation by someone else) is under the name "Holly Davidson Lewis", but other sources (e.g. her cv) make clear that this is the same person as the "Holly M. Lewis" that we're discussing here. So editors looking for sources on this subject should be careful about the multiplicity of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof unless citations to her work can be found. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep She passes GNG because her views are covered by independent reliable sources (Peer-reviewed academic journals). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which peer reviewed academic journals? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Critical Social Policy. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. There is apparently one book review, which I have been unable to download. I cannot find a single citation to it on Google scholar. Much more is needed. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Cheney (scientist) with 32,673 GS citations (not as much as this is needed,but more). Fails WP:Prof at present as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Experimental scientists cannot be compared with human scientists. They are totally different worlds and the number of citations in human sciences (particularly philosophy) is not that important in notability. I think it is clear that the current article has independent reliable sources (if not "academic" sources) and it passes GNG (if not WP:Prof). If you think the sources are not reliable or independent, let's check them one by one. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been accepted that citation rates vary by field, so philosophers are compared with other philosophers. Many of these have significant citation records, This one has zero so a pass of WP:Prof is not possible. Can you point to other BIOs of philosophy academics on Wikipedia whose work has received zero citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Although she can be said to somehow possess criterion 7, I accept she does not pass WP:PROF and I stick by GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under which category? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete I withdrew last week, due to lack of time to examine the new sourcing and argument. The film appears to have gotten no attention aside from a listing in the things-to-do-section of a newspaper and a listing by the British film Institute which appears to run an IMDB type list, neither of which contributes to notability. Nor can I find additional sources on the film or on Lewis that do. Of the 4 book reviews, 2 appear minor, online political publications [18], [19], where it is framed not as scholarship but as an "a landmark work of engaged revolutionary politics." The review in the minor scholarly journal Critical Theory (not bluelinked) similarly frames it as a less a work of scholarship than it is a "political project...The arguments in The Politics of Everybody are not evidenced in the way that we might expect from an academic text... Holly Lewis seeks to move both political debate, and perhaps more importantly, political action forward. The 4th, in Socialist Review is unenthusiastic. One of the reviews reads " Lewis and I are comrades in arms and friendly sparring partners. We agree much more often than we disagree." and the fact that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author. Be that as it may, the book did not receive warm reviews, was not reviewed in mainstream publications or in the major academic journals, and appears to have made little impression in the worlds of politics or ideas, neither the book nor Lewis are widely cited. In short, Lewis (an assistant professor at a minor university,) appears to be a minor academic who has produces a film that got no attention, written a very minor book, and no important articles. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, gosh, I had missed the fact that this is a brand-spanking-new article created by User:Pirhayati, the only editor making repeated, strong arguments to keep it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory, in addition to Ali Pirhayati, there are quite a few other editors arguing here to keep the article. Surely it does not deserve mockery or even surprise that someone who went to the trouble to create an article wants it kept. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was only surprised that it had not been mentioned (and that I had not noticed - No mockery was intended except self-mockery.) It is usual for an article creator making a comment at AfD to note that s/he is the article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments only show that one of the sources may not be independent and that she is not academically-notable. But my argument that she passes GNG still is the case. You said "...that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author"? What does it mean? For example, if reviews of the works of a structuralist thinker appear in journals which publish articles on structuralism, the reviews will not be independent!? I think Lewis passes GNG because the article has at least three "independent reliable" sources which cover her ideas "significantly" (means "not trivial"). Then you can provide a counterargument by showing that the sources are not 1. reliable or 2. independent or 3. significant. I can't see such a counterargument in your comments.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete E.M. Gregory's analysis basically shows that 1-Lewis's work does not rise to the level of a major contribution. 2-Wikipedia already has way too much of a presentist bias, keeping an article like this on an unremarkable activist leftist professor, just adds to this overcoverage of the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not professor, Assistant professor (who are almost never notable). Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 23 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table[edit]

2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table (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)

See also Template:2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table. Generally, we created this kind of table in template space. Author dePROD, his reason is:I object the deletion, because it is the right one, to be put in the 2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo page as the League's table, so please don't delete it! But 2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo uses template one, not this one, see:[20], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have declined his CSD, see:[21] Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it is better for author to read Wikipedia:Transclusion before editing. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dardn2015 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Template is fine and most suited place for this table. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Has the template doing what is required. NZFC^(talk) 23:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary duplication. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, not needed when template exists. GiantSnowman 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary duplicate, belongs in template space. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 16 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Designer Communication Platform[edit]

Asia Designer Communication Platform (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 is a highly promotional article solely the work of multiple sock puppets. Multiple pages created by these socks have already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hychiang and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Taipei_Base_Design_Center_and_related_articles for additional details. I'm not sure if the organization passes WP:N, but I think WP:TNT applies if it does. It could probably be deleted per WP:CSD#G11 as well. Deli nk (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage, seems to a kind of listing article, with names, and no idea, why they are in there in the first place. No coverage, so fails WP:SIGCOV. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a company webpage Quek157 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Malick[edit]

Suman Kumar Malick (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)

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4 and G5 a recreation of Suman Kumar Mallick. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:55, 15 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Chandra Bhowal[edit]

Ananda Chandra Bhowal (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)

Search doesn't produce any coverage in the independent RS about the person so I can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing an assertion of notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, no apparent notability. --JustBerry (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources in the article. I conducted my own search and I couldn't find anything about this person. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:18, 18 May 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. Enigma^msg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denka[edit]

Denka (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)

Can't find anything on Google about this - a search for Denka turns up a bunch of irrelevant things, and even "Denka God" (without the quotes) just turned up mirrors, nonsense, and a couple books with a character named Denka. Possible hoax, and in any case fails GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails GNG. I found no information in google, google scholar, google books. Article is sourced to a blog. JimRenge (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sportsfan 1234. JimRenge (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It appears this user forgot to do WP:BEFORE before nomination. Per this source [22] page 29 and [23], pg. 87, the subject of the article appears to exist. This does not appear to be a hoax. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What standards of notability should be considered for African deities? Jacona (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Sportsfan 1234. Isn't he the "Dinka god of sky, rain and fertility"?[24] Deng is the "Sky god. Nuer and Dinka [Sudan]. Considered to be a foreign deity in the Nuer pantheon and a bringer of disease. His daughter is the moon goddess. In Dinka religion he is a storm and fertility god bringing lightning and rain." (Jordan, Michael, Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Infobase Publishing (2014), p.74, ISBN 9781438109855[25]). There are various other sources so will probably expand and source this article time permitting. Nevertheless, that should not warrant deletion.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some refs and content. There are plenty of refs available regarding this deity. I'm surprised that the nominator didn't take the time to research before nominating. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing this as nom. I found sources for Dinka but was not aware that he (it?) was the same as Denka. Nevermind the last part, misread the comment above. Nonetheless, it appears sources exist. Withdrawal stands unless someone objects. Smartyllama (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was on the fence on this one, as I'm very ignorant of how we should evaluate the notability of an African deity. We all make mistakes, kudos to Smartyllama for owning up to it and doing the right thing by withdrawing the nomination, and saving many editors from wasting time on this! Thanks!Jacona (talk) 11:01, 17 May 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. It's clear that a lot of people who don't normally frequent WP:AfD came here to express opinions. I don't see any evidence of WP:CANVASS, per-se. There's off-wiki pointers to this discussion, but as far as I can see, they're in topic-neutral fora such as /r/wikipediaafdwatch on Reddit. The most likely explanation is that people just saw the thread on WP:AE and headed over here.

Be that as it may, it made for a messy discussion. However, it seems pretty clear that the delete arguments are the ones that are citing good policy reasons. In particular, the sources presented have mostly been found to not be WP:RS, her book appears to be self-published, and there's no evidence of widespread library holdings or independent critical review.

If anybody wants to research better sources, I can restore this to draft for you. But, please, don't ask unless you really do intend to do the research and find better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Poray[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Anna Poray (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)

Activist in Polish-Canadian organizations, and author of a (single?) book. The book seems to be self-published (the publisher is A. Poray), and does not seem to be notable in terms of coverage of the book. Sourcing in the article are the subject's own writings, some obits, and an interview with her on the release of the book. The subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: per this obit she worked in the libraries of several Montreal universities which would not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum2: It seems that the scant coverage of Poray focus on the WP:FRINGE aspects of her activism - per Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe first, to underscore the large number of rescuers; second, to downplay or ignore the low societal approval of rescue activities; and third, not to differentiate among the various among the various categories of rescuers, protectors, and helpers and their motivations. The same tendencies are currently being advocated and fostered by historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna.(94) As a tool to normalize the dark past, to claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, and to restore the image of Poles as.... Footnote 94 mentioning an interview of her in a Polish newspaper as an example. Also in “I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — Rescuee Relationships in the Light of Postwar Correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949 - For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennik in footnote 85 - whose context is Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). So her work/views are clearly referred to as a myth in an actual RS (all be it - relegated to a passing mention in a footnote). Per WP:NFRINGE - A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers - which is not the case here. Critical coverage of Poray is limited to a few footnotes in which an interview with her (in a conservative Polish newspaper) is noted as an example. We generally lack INDEPTH pieces on Poray - and the sole one that approaches it (the wpolityce obit) is from an outlet that is sympathetic to her views.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE deletion. KEEP the article on Anna Poray. She is the author of a 2007 book, Those Who Risked Their Lives, that is cited as a source in over a dozen articles on the English-language Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE. This is a bad faith nomination by problem User:Icewhiz in a series of his disruptive edits in the area of Polish-Jewish relations since the exchange between Poland and Israel over the Holocaust Bill (announced in February 2018). Actually, this is an issue for WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents more than anything, because most of what Icewhiz does in this area is no longer rational. Historian Anna Poray (1919–2013) was a major expert in the field of Holocaust rescue. Poeticbent talk 15:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray.

In one hour, Icewhiz deleted Anna Poray from over 60 articles. What a joke! Poeticbent talk 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Any sources to back up this claim, besides use on Wikipedia (much of it inserted by editors above)? The sole book by Anna Poray was published by A. Poray. Per google-scholar it is not cited by others (there is a citation entry, but zero uses of it) - which indicates very low use of this sole work.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  USHMM attempts to hold every single document relating to the Holocaust in its library - USHMM possessing a copy of this self published book does not indicate notability of the author (or reliability of the book). Per worldcat it would seems this is the only library that holds a copy.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE and KEEP - as per oposing above GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Why is Oppose being used? It's either Keep or Delete. This isn't a vote. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty clear indication of WP:CANVAS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have clear evidence of CANVASING? I didn't get any "messages' to alert me of this discussion, but the related WP:AE [26] disscussion about mass deletion of refrence sources did. --E-960 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE and KEEP-this author has written extensively on the subject of rescue of Jews in Poland.It seems to be target of Icewhiz recent intense edit spree aiming at deletion of information about Polish rescuers of Jews during Holocaust.These edits are becoming more and more obsessive.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE removal, (Keep) - as per oposing above. --E-960 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to my above 'Keep' recommendation — I would like to highlight the SECONDARY REFERENCES about Poray listed by user Malik Shabazz in his comment bit further down, it shows other academics to reference Poray and her work. --E-960 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In less than 15 minutes of searching, I found this article (not cited as a source in the Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell), which quotes historian pl:Jan_Żaryn concerning her. An interview with her is cited as a source in Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939–1947 by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. An article by her is cited in "Memories of Jews and the Holocaust in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland " by Joanna Michlic. She is cited (three times) as a source in Irena's Children by Tilar J. Mazzeo.[27][28][29] And so on. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The wpolityce obit is in the article. Mentions of her writings, by other authors, are few and far between - not rising up to NPROF or AUTHOR.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the works by Joanna Michlic (which is replicated in a number of different book) - she mentioned in footnote 33 (one of around 7 examples, no discussion of her beyond date, title ad name) that mentions an Nasz Dziennik article by Poray in a footnote in [30] as an illustrative example of Historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna often cite the number of Christian Polish rescuers of Jews honored to date by the Yad Vashem Memorial Institue in Jerusalem, numbering approximately 6,350, as a tool to "normalize" the dark past. By employing this data, they claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, in order to restore the image of Poles as solely heroes and martyrs (note 33).

  A passing mention in a footnote (replicated in a number of variants by Michlic), being mentioned as one of several people interviewed by Chodakiewicz, a single citation repeated thrice in a mass market book, or being mentioned in various directories is not an indication of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What did she write, who published it, and in what RS is she quoted? François Robere (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @François Robere: Those Who Risked Their Lives, by Anna Poray. Published by A. Poray [31][32] - and also online at savingjews.org. Per google scholar it is not cited much. It does seem that she was interviewed or wrote (Michlic attributes it to her, but it look like an interview) a newspaper article in 2004 that Joanna Michlic cites (in several related articles) as one of several examples of "polityka historyczna" in a footnote (this seems to be a copy of it - describing what she's been doing www.savingjews, criticizing Maus which she says was compulsory reading in schools and misrepresented Poles leading to a false perception in the US and Canada (as well as other notable works)).Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Poeticbent @E-960 @Malik Shabazz: So she has one self-published book, and a few short publication (interviews, articles), at least one of which mentioned as "polityka historyczna". Is this correct? How is it any different than your average Ph.D student? François Robere (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand she also appears under the name of "Anna Poray-Wybranowska". Her book was quoted a number of times based on Google searches [33]. Can her book be used as a source in WP? I do not see why not because it was used as a reference in reliably published sources. I would expect her citation index to be low (did not check), but this is area of humanities. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the google book hits do not mention her book. Many are directory style entries such as this one or this one where she has a line (as a librarian). In terms of citations - "Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Naród bohaterów,” Nasz Dziennik, October 9, 2004" (which is actually an interview with her) - is mentioned in a few hits (mainly due to repetitions of Michlic's footnote). Those Who Risked Their Lives is not cited (save for Irena's Children - a mass market book) as far as I can tell. Note that the raw google hits are probably "contaminated" from google suggesting plausible results based on use in Wikipedia - many of the hits do not actually contain the string "Poray" inside them (which is evident from there being no preview text, and verified by searching inside the book).Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is notability, not reliability, as this isn't an RSN discussion. Any random Google Scholar search will come up with hundreds, if not thousands of more notable scholars that aren't mentioned on Wiki. Not to detract from Ms. Poray's contribution, but we might as well scour universities' websites and just add everyone there. François Robere (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is definitely on a borderline of our notability guidelines. Too low citation. Given the well written info and refs currently on the page, I would still be inclined to keep as an "inclusionist". My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and dirty exercise: Input the query "fire ant" into Google Scholar; the first five results were authored by a total of 17 authors and cited a total of 1790 times, or 105 citations per author; only two of these have Wikipedia articles of their own, and several are not even cited as sources. Now, this isn't exactly a perfect methodology, and I wouldn't use it for much else (although you can substitute the subject as you please), but it does give some perspective. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Fortunately, we have a page about Fire ant. He is a lot ore important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we have (besides one obit in an outlet sympathetic to her) is passing mentions - not indepth coverage - which is actually not borderline. However even if this were borderline, per WP:NFRINGE (which is relevant since passing mentions of her in a few footnotes of a RS are as an example of fringe) - for notability we would require her to be referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers - leaning towards deletionists for fringe subjects.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland confer any notability? Thsmi002 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned in WP:ANYBIO#1? Thsmi002 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "well-known and significant award or honor". In WP:SOLDIER we only recognize the nation's highest award for valour. This particular order of merit is 4th class in Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland which itself ranks below other awards such as Order of Polonia Restituta or Order of the White Eagle (Poland).Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (Polish: Order Zasługi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) is a Polish order of merit created in 1974 and awarded to foreigners or Poles resident abroad who have rendered great service to Poland. One recipient of it was Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. It is not a negligible decoration.

The Order of Polonia Restituta (Polish: Order Odrodzenia Polski; English: Order of the Rebirth of Poland), is a Polish state order established on 4 February 1921. It is conferred on both military and civilian persons as well as on foreigners for outstanding achievements in the fields of education, science, sport, culture, art, economics, national defense, social work, civil service, or for furthering good relations between countries.

The Order of the White Eagle (Polish: Order Orła Białego) is Poland's highest order awarded to both civilian and military persons for merit. It was officially instituted on 1 November 1705 by King Augustus II the Strong and is awarded to the most distinguished Poles and the highest-ranking representatives of foreign countries.

Even some prominent foreign-based historians such as Jan Grabowski do not appear, from their Wikipedia articles, to have received any of these decorations.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seems this order of merit is awarded not on the basis of the international recognition or quality of the research, but perhaps based on the Polish government recognizing the activism (minor as it is) of the recipient. Thus, for instance, the Polish government has stripped the order of merit from a highly notable historian that the current governemtn seems to not like."Princeton University professor Jan Tomasz Gross faces losing Order of Merit over comments Polish villagers were complicit in massacre of Jews. In any event, this is an award that is handed out in great numbers and says very little.Icewhiz (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Seems on the notable side of borderline. Just obis are not enough, and her book citations may not be enough for WP:PROF, but there are some mentions on her outside obits, and all of this combined seems to be just enough to warrant a bio entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sorry, but there are countless academics (and artists, and socialites, and what not) far more renowned that we haven't created pages for. If all we have is a handful of passing mentions by other scholars, then it's simply not enough. Mr. Konieczny has far more citations and isn't yet the subject of an article [34]. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, I don't have several obituaries like she does, neither :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable , secondary sources. Note that the "obituary" in the Montreal Gazette is an announcement of her death by her family, not a source usable to establish notability. No secondary coverage of her life and work in English or French at all, despite the fact that she was educated in New York, lived in Canada for the rest of her life, and wrote about a topic that excites intense media interest. This dearth of sources is probably explained by the fact that while there were heroic Polish Christians who saved the lives of Jews, Porat's claim to notability is her assertion that "thousands... of heroic individuals who, under the threat of death, helped Jews during World War II. Some 30,000 of them were murdered by the Nazis for trying to save Jews," is blatant WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE theorists can be notable, but we lack sources to show that this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  For the sake of precision, her claim was over 1 million rescuers.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC) For the sake of precision, it was a cool 1 million, not over.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose she gets extra WP:FRINGE points for making up a big lie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory, in your statement I do pick up a bit of a BIAS. How many times are you going to write "WP:FRINGE" in your comments, and highlight phrases such as "big lie" (with a hyperlink no less). Btw, there are historians who also cite that over 20,000 Poles were murdered because they in some way assisted Jews. Finally, please note the SECONDARY COVERAGE of Poray that was provide by user Malik Shabazz above. Also, pls do read about Żegota, a Polish organization that was dedicated to saving Jews during the war, which made up of THOUSANDS of Poles. I'll venture to say you were probably not aware of this, since you said that this "is blatant WP:FRINGE". Also, Emanuel Ringelblum stated that in his 1944 diary that thousands of Poles were helping Jews in Warsaw. --E-960 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You malign me. Kindly WP:AGF and do me the courtesy of assuming that I know this subject area well and recognize FRINGE revisionist POV-pushing masquerading as scholarship when I see it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I do assume good faith, but it appears that you are simply ignoring certain facts, are you going to say that Emanuel Ringelblum, was just wrong? That Żegota did not save all those Jews? I'm also aware that out of all the academic pursuits 'history' is the most subjective, so to just say one historical view is 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, already exposes a bias. Btw, famous sayings such as this 'history is written by the victors' expose and highlight just how flimsy and unreliable the this area of academia can be, just one example out of many. --E-960 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Icewhiz, can you provide a source where that claim is made. --E-960 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this PHD dissertation (and no - a single paragraph (and much of it on Nasz Dziennik) in a PHD dissertation on the right-wing Polish press portrayal of Jews does not advance notability much (for any bio - all the more for a NFRINGE one).... But a PHD dissertation is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP a usable RS, and University College London is a word class university) - Kwiatkowska, Hanna Maria. Conflict of images. Conflict of memories. Jewish themes in the Polish right-wing nationalistic press in the light of articles from Nasz Dziennik 1998–2007. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2008. - Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'. The original Polish interview might be this (it is scroll-able - you need to move the double-red bar down the yellow bar with numbers) - and I'm saying might since this is hosted on what seems to be a dubious website and not on Nasz Dziennik. I'll note that after going through all the crud on google-books and google-scholar it seems much of the coverage of Poray in these sources is a passing mention of this notorious 2004 interview (The PHD giving it a paragraph - usually it is just an example (one of a few) in a footnote with little beyond title, name, and date), other than that there are random directory / reports from her work as a university librarian, and not much else - the self-published book is mentioned much less than this interview (there is one mass market book that cites it - however I wouldn't be surprised if they mined the citation from Wikipedia, as we cite (or rather cited) the same page in relevant articles - and the book was published well after this was added to Wikipedia).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am regularly daunted and discouraged by the frequency with which I see books, and even journal articles, by reputable publishers in which authors use bad facts that I can trace to Wikiepdia articles.15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it really comes across as if you want to remove Poray because you simply don't agree with her. Don't forget that Jan Gross was also soundly discredited on several points he made in his "research". Does that mean he is not a scholar because he was wrong on something. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA please - I have no opinion on Poray. Frankly - I was astounded by the push back to the AfD with the initial votes here - when I nominated her, it seemed to me she was a retired librarian who did a little bit of activism and wrote a single little mentioned self-published book - which would not be grounds for notability. Following the unusual voting pattern here I did dig deeper (particularly since we had WP:GHITS !votes - or GBOOKSHITS to be precise) - going through all the google-book crud - and seeing that in the footnotes of WP:RS she is mentioned as a WP:FRINGE figure and further ascertaining that there was no WP:INDEPTH coverage of her. As for the comparison between Jan T. Gross (a chaired Princeton professor, award winning, significant coverage (in scholarship and news), extremely widely cited - clearly passing GNG and several NPROF criteria)) - forgive me, but this WP:OSE argument in relation to a retired librarian with scant coverage and one self-published book - is absurd.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, I'll give you that, she is not the most famous of researchers on this topic, but when your book is mentioned by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum example: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray., than there is a level of notability regarding your work, whether you are correct on everything or not. --E-960 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per worldcat - that's the only library holding this book - which is a strong sign of non-notability. As for being held by USHMM - their policy is to hold everything - any quality, any location, any language, anything - that pertains to the Holocaust and World War II - so no, that is not a sign of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, what about the SECONDARY REFERENCES to Poray listed by user Malik Shabazz? --E-960 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wpolityce is an obit by a sympathtic source. The rest are not in-depth. Going over one by one - Chodakiewicz says he interviewed her - that's it - one of many interviewees he spoke to. Joanna Michlic (which I quoted for the FRINGE assertion) - mentions her 2004 interview in footnotes (in each case - one of several examples for the phenomena she describes). She is cited by Irena's Children as a source (this is a mass market book, and in any event - she is not close to the number of citations for NPROF) - quite possibly copied off of Wikipedia - with no coverage of Poray herself.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Poeticbent raised a interesting point below, that 'diminishing the role of Polish rescuers of the Jews during the Holocaust, has become an Israeli state policy of Benjamin Netanyahu in recent past'. Really, my observation, every Polish reference is being labeled as unreliable or not significant. Obviously, it just looks like a general trent out there. Icewhiz, you should at lest to some extent acknowledge that there maybe a different view points of the events in question. --E-960 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a point but an unsubstantiated claim, which PB's "reference" doesn't even mention.

every Polish reference is being labeled as unreliable or not significant: Not true. First, we have more than one Polish source cited in the relevant articles. Second, several of the sources you disagree with are Polish expats who maintain an active connection with their homeland. Third, Polish historiography has been politicized both during the communist rule, immediately after its fall, and in recent years (we have sources about it, and Polish historians admit at least the first two), so it's naturally questioned. And lastly, probably as a result of the previous issue, there seems to be a gap between how these issues are perceived by conservative Polish historians, popular media and politicians, and the rest of the world, which itself raises questions about some narratives that are cited here. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being author of the book is not reason enough to be notable.Anyone can go to WP:SPS publishing house and have a book.No one in this discussion showed WP:RS sources that discuss her.So she clearly fails WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory and Shrike: (willingly or not), you are being manipulated [statement refactored, sorry]. Diminishing the role of Polish rescuers of the Jews during the Holocaust, has become an Israeli state policy of Benjamin Netanyahu in recent past,[35] no less. Dozens of Wikipedia articles about Poland are under attack by the same WP:TAG TEAM on the basis of a smear campaign by Israeli media. Instead of buying into this WP:GAME of casting aspersions (NOT just about Anna Poray), please ask for citations next time, to confirm claims made by the AFD nominator. In our Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust in Poland many notable historians give estimates of the one million Polish helpers including Lukas, Mirriam-Goldberg, Kwiatkowski, Marshall Smith, and Zajdler. Anna Poray is an expert in the field. The reason why her groundbreaking work wasn't picked up by a leading publisher is because of how highly specialized it is. Those who Risked Their Lives (ISBN 0979221307) by Anna Poray is a book of pure statistics, not profitable commercially. Poray died in 2013 of old age, which should make it clear to anyone here that other concerned individuals published her findings of her behalf, and in all likelihood withheld their names out of respect for her. She hasn't "self-published" the study. It is a false claim made by notorious POV pushers. Research by Poray was conducted over a period of 30 years, and hasn't been matched by anything even remotely similar in its magnitude. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Poeticbent, I would like for you to make your argument without resorting to the rhetoric of your first sentence, gaslighting and all. And it's Netanyahu who by proxy is disappearing Wikipedia articles? Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored my statement from above. Sorry, and thank you for the feedback. Poeticbent talk 23:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you argument is 100% correct I can't change my vote because you didn't provide any policy based argument.--Shrike (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of it is that my policy based argument leads directly to the same guidelines used in this AFD nomination. Poeticbent talk 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, regarding your comment if there were any SECONDARY SOURCES which reference Poray, here is a couple of them, as noted earlier in the discussion: Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939–1947, Memories of Jews and the Holocaust in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland, and Irena's Children. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that all you found that I am very sorry per our policy she doesn't meet WP:GNG.The articles with far more stronger sources were deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scholars_for_Peace_in_the_Middle_East.If you can provide same level of sources like in my keep vote there I will change my vote.--Shrike (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources from that AFD were atrocious Shrike which was largely the reason the article was deleted; it wouldn't be difficult to find sources of the "same level". Perhaps you should raise the bar a little bit?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheGracefulSlick If those source were "atrocious " what do you think about sources that E-960 presented?--Shrike (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – does not meet WP:NAUTHOR & significant RS coverage not found. Her books are very sparsely held: 3 works and 13 library holdings. I’ve not been able to find significant coverage or reviews of her book about the rescue of Jews in Poland; holdings are very minor: 3 editions published in 2007 in English and held by 7 libraries worldwide. Here’s some blog coverage. The flowery language of “Poray-Wybranowska published a ground-breaking book entitled Those Who Risked Their Lives in 2007^[1] is cited to the book itself.

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC either as Poray's works appear to be obscure and are infrequently cited by others. The obituaries are non-editorial such as Montreal Gazette, which was family submitted. this source appears to be self-published / user-generated. There may be some notability as an activist, but I think the sources do not bear it out. The award is “4th class - Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland”, which is insufficient for WP:ANYBIO. If the AfD discussion closes as “keep” or “no consensus”, the article should be modified to remove the hyperbole & to conform to independent RS; it would most likely be a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly OPPOSE deletion. KEEP the article and references to Poray's book. Anna Poray’s book is based on reliable sources like Michal Grynberg, Ksiega sprawiedliwych (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1993), and others. It focuses on rescue efforts, and therefore the notion that it should also focus on something else is spurious. She worked closely with the Righteous Department of Yad Vashem for years. It must be pointed out, with regret, that there is an ideologically based assault going on here, including manipulation and misrepresentation. One of many examples: It is not Mark Paul who is promoting the myth of Jewish ingratitude. In fact, Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish attitudes. Rather someone doesn’t like the sources that he cites, which are Jewish authors exposing this phenomenon based on Jewish testimonies:

(1) “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245.

(2) “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” See Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22.

(3) Liwa Gomulka, the wife of Communist leader Wladysław Gomulka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” See Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143.Tatzref (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— Tatzref (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete – does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I am surprised by the number of votes saying oppose deletion and keep, which is a unique and rare way of voting.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 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.