Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 November 8
2011 November 10 >

9 November 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Max Kaur (Jermakov) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted despite the discussion with given questions and provided facts. We see that discussion transformed in constructive to political debate. Max Kaur (Jermakov) meets the requirements: This man is involved into Estonian politics for at least 15 years. Former vice-mayor of the town of Maardu. At the moment, this politician is a Chairman of the Law Enforcement Commission of the City Council of the Capital of Estonia (both it is a serious position considering that Tallinn is the Cultural Capital of Europe, 2011). Just to mention - Mr. Kaur was political advisor of the head of the popular party "Centre Party" Mr. Edgar Savisaar (I am not trying to use invalid criteria "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B", but I would like to mention that he was Estonian Prime minister from 1990 to 1992, got most of the votes at Parliament elections in 2011, at the moment - mayor of Capital of Estonia, ). He is most mentioned person of "Centre Party" in press. While the article and the politian we talk about met the requirements of "notability", our opponents started to use such expressions like "youth section of centre party", "small-time politician", "yellow journalism garbage", "his supporters should show up here... but this doesn't mean we need take what they say seriously" etc. It is absolutely non-professional and non-encyclopedic. We aren't discussing people. The article is about the well-respected man who is very famous in Tallinn and the main state of Estonia - Harjumaa, leading Institute of Society Development and giving lectures in ECOMEN institute in Tallinn. Moreover, this person has recommended himself on international area as a solid man, presenting Estonia in serious Worldwide organizations like International Human Rights Movement "World Without Nazism" (has offices Bruxelles, Moscow etc..), making lectures and reports - people of Estonia proud of such persons. I saw a lack of neutralism and justice while discussion. It was very abusively for me to hear such words like "supporter from youth section of party" from participants of so named discussion (it looked like a political debate). With a hope, I ask moderators to return the article. Johannes xz (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Johannes xz (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bgwhite's point was that this individual is on Tallinn City Council (source), which does appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN point #2 ("members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city"). In the debate, this point seems to have been ignored rather than refuted, so on the face of it the nominator here may have an arguable case, but I don't know whether, in this case, DRV will prefer the GNG over SNGs. Also, I don't speak Estonian and am not qualified to evaluate the sources. I suggest we ask for input from a randomly-selected editor from WikiProject Estonia who has not previously participated in a discussion about Max Kaur, in the hope that a neutral Estonian speaker will be able to give us a fair assessment of the reliability of the sources used.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted to delete, but it was borderline & I expected a no-consensus close. Spartaz based his decision on the view that the sources were unreliable, which I think also, but not everyone did. I admit I was influenced in considerable measure by the argumentative nature of the discussion, as well as the dubious nature of the sourcing and the attempt to extend mere mentions to something more significant. At present I admit to a developing bias, I think shared by others, that the odds that a borderline article will and should get deleted is a function of the extent of promotionalism in the article and the discussion. It really doesn't matter that we might have articles of borderline significance--there are many places to draw the line, none with much better intrinsic reason than another. There are many ways to argue on the basis of the equivocal phrases in the GNG, which at this point I think worthless in both directions. Depending on whether one judges something notable on whatever one's own criteria actually are, it's usually possible to argue that the sources are or are not significant and third party or generally reliable. I could have argued that point either way for the present article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Endorse. Not notable, purely promotional article - and the army of sock/meatpuppets didn't really help to form a positive view (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MVK2009). --Sander Säde 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderators! I would like to ask Your help in making this discussion more neutral and prevent other participants' attempts to give discussion a political colors and accuse respected in society people in using in political technologies. It is obvious that every politician uses political technologies and almost every official has a party affilation - it is obvious,but we also speak about an official, a politician, a public figure, who bring benefit to society - that is the point in article. -- Aleksss19 ( talk ) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Endorse per Sander Säde and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MVK2009. Claimed notability is nothing without verifiable reliable sources, and we have a strong bias against unsourced BLPs, plus a drawer full of WP:SPA suspected socks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close I think I noted that the spas/IPs and obvious meatpuppets had been discarded and the established users had sufficiently considered the sourcing and found it wanting. I will admit that I give GNG more weight then SNGs when we are dealing with BLPs because the community is now clearly averse to inadequately sourced BLPs and I believe we have to reflect that in the weight we give competing standards when we close discussions. I did not allow the obvious gerrymandering and COI issues any weight in the close as they are reasons to improve an article not delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Given the state of the AfD and (lack of) proffered sources, deletion is clearly reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

not notable

Now that the most outrageous claims of this article have been removed or refuted, what remains is, in the words of the article itself, eminently non-notable. Here is a summary of the main points of the article:

  • The first translation of Mein Kampf was not approved by the Third Reich, and was never published.
  • The second translation was also not approved by the Reich. Eventually the translator self-published it. It achieved very little circulation, and played little to no role in Nazi propaganda to the Arab world. Some Arab intellectuals denounced it because it portrayed Arabs as an inferior race.
  • In 1967, the book was retranslated by a Nazi war criminal and published by Beisan in Beirut. In 1999, one bookstore in Ramallah reported that it had sold less than 40 copies in the course of August, making it the 6th most popular title that month. A bookseller at the Cairo Book fair in 2007 said he sold a lot of copies. (However, Mein Kampf does not appear on any published bestseller list of Arabic books - a fact that was deleted from the article because the sources were contested).
  • Israeli spokesmen have on occasion tried to link Mein Kampf with Arabs. Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried copies of it in the backpacks during the 1956 Sinai campaign. (There was no independent confirmation of this claim.)

Given the total lack of substance to this article, as attested by the article itself, the question is: why is it still around? The answer, of course, is that some editors are still trying vigorously to include sentences suggesting that Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories and in other Arab countries - something that is unsupported by the article.

There is only one place for an article like this - the little trash icon in the corner of your screen. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse This has little to do with the AfD discussion, which obviously closed in the proper manner considering the votes and arguments within it. What this has to do with is that Ravpapa is personally opposed to the topic, having made comments on the talk page in regards to the AfD such as, "You are right that "the community" considers this notable. And that is shameful." The talk page itself has turned into a huge WP:IDONTLIKEIT convention,including insinuations that people arguing to keep the article are trying to keep "Zionist propaganda" in Wikipedia. SilverserenC 13:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why this article is causing concern, and the nominator's right to feel that there are many pro-Israeli editors on Wikipedia, and most Wikipedian articles that touch on the middle east are mildly pro-Israel. (This is at least partly because so many of the English-language sources come from the States). But a discussion like that can't possibly lead to a delete outcome; it would make a total mockery of our procedures. I'm afraid the way to keep this article NPOV is to watchlist it and prevent POV material from being added.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's relevant, but you happen to be wrong on your facts. There are many more anti-Israel editors than pro-Israel editors (to use your term) on Wikipedia. For that reason, Israel related articles tilt far more towards the anti-Israel stance as compared to the same articles in more legitimate encyclopedias like The Britannica. One example is that as far as I know no other country has to put up with something like this. Ma'on, Har Hebron is another example. More then 50% of the article's content is about its "illegality" while not one word about the historic Jewish connection to the area is mentioned. This imaginary Jewish and Zionist power does not exist on Wikipedia, just like it does not exist elsewhere, despite the claims of conspiracy theorists etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with S Marshall's conclusion. But there has been a strong reaction against this article from many editors (see here talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language and the original deletion review). The main reason for the strength of feeling is whilst there are a number of reputable sources which make reference to the topic in passing, the only sources which write directly on the topic are Zionist propaganda sources. We must not let wikipedia reach these depths, becoming a coatrack for propaganda (of whichever colour). If we don't make a stand at some point it will continue to get worse. Again, I agree with S Marshall that the procedures in place will only ever result in no consensus, so let's see what happens and then consider suggesting a change in the procedures. The bar is simply too low. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then just start a new AfD. DRV is meant to be if there was an error in the closing of the previous AfD that didn't properly apply consensus. This is the wrong process for what you want. SilverserenC 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and I think a relisting would give the same result, as would another AfD. The close was soundly based on policy, and the reasons for wanting deletion are obvious enough, and obviously irrelevant. The arguments at this deletion review are irrelevant in face of positive indications of importance; whether it was or was not the Third Reich which published it is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the fact that it achieved very little circulation, nor the fact that it had little or no impact on Nazi propaganda. Nor the fact that the book never appeared on a bestseller list of Arabic books, despite the claims of two AFP articles, repeated ad nauseum by others, which are in themselves based on impressions and fly in the face of objective evidence (published bestseller lists of Arabic books). There is, indeed, quite a bit of information (reliably sourced) in this article about how unimportant this book is. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's quite easy to find reliable sources that say things like "Hitler was the bestselling author of the century" or thereabouts, but you would be hard pushed to find finer examples of the transparent use of the pinpointing the enemy propaganda technique in Wikipedia than the line in the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language article that says Mein Kampf "ranked sixth on the bestseller list compiled by Dar el-Shuruq bookshop in Ramallah, with sales of about 10 copies a week" (and all of the variations that have been tried) and quoting the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a propaganda organization if there ever was one (that's their job and good luck to them), to "confirm" something about bookstores in the Edgeware Road in London. Whatever happens to the article, this kind of decontextualized drivel needs to go. If editors want to keep the article I hope they help to address the selective omission issues, place sales in a global context and improve it. It's also an attractive prospect for persistent sockpuppets so it probably needs eyes on it from experienced sock hunters. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why an attempt to delete this article outright, rather than merge it? Given WP:ATD it's a very steep climb to achieve a policy-based deletion result rather than just a merge into Mein Kampf itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure by default, as no attempt was made to resolve this with me as the closing admin before filing this request, and no argument is made why the closure incorrectly assessed consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2, as the saying goes.  Sandstein  08:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close We've been over this before many times. This isn't different than say having an article about translations of any major text (like Euclid's Elements or the Bible). This has been discussed many times now, both on the talk page and in the AfD. This DRV doesn't raise any new issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_9&oldid=1079434479"