Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan Theodor Mundstock

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

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

Pan Theodor Mundstock[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy Delete - G5. Creator was sockpupeteer. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The corresponding article in the Czech Wikipedia says: "The book is ranked among Fuks' greatest works and has been translated into several languages, highly prized in Germany, Poland and Hungary." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also called "Mr Theodor Munstock". Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. Also satisfies NBOOKS. Achieved "world renown": [1]. Many translations: [2] in seventeen countries. Has book reviews calling it "brilliant": [3]. Generally regarded by critics as "one of the best" books of its time: [4]. And I could go on in this vein, because there is a lot more where that came from. And I award a massive WP:TROUT to those editors above who thought this book was not notable. James500 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is it bad faith? The article all have a similiar composition. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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