Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 July	22 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Nonsuch Parkrun[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camilo Him[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

general name-calling by blocked editor

Theredproject DO NOT be perplexed. Obviously your grounds for deletion are based on your personal opinion and speculation and in no way on real facts.

(1) On your question of “whether his work as a fashion photographer rises to the level of notability” says you? Obviously top international magazine brands and their editors have had no problem debating your personal taste. New York Fashion Week has no problem thinking about that. Celebrity publicists, model agencies, top fashion designers have no problem thinking about that. But you are above the all because you are..? a troll

(2) "The most recent owner of the house" has been there for decades and mind you there has only been 2 owners… the original owner and James Goldstein...talk about a stretch in language usage! troll The fact that LACMA has acquire the house for their collection, means exactly that. All content in the house, including James hats, books and his art collection have become part of LACMA. So wait for their audit of the house contents before troll commenting. It is a fact! Go ask any foundation.

(3) Regarding Camilo Him’s “Big Shows” exhibit, again you are nothing but in full Conspiracy Theory territory. Camilo Him has been the only photographer to ever exhibit at The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts “AT” the invitation of New York Fashion Week…. mind you NYFW (MBFW) is the highest organization in America in charged of the Fashion Shows in New York. He is not notable in your personal troll mind but obviously NYFW didn’t think as you do. And to speculate that any photographer can just walk in and rent a space to show their work is just insane… Somebody needs to watch THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA… nobody gets in unless he or she is invited to be in. By the way top designers, celebrities, and supermodels attended his exhibit opening…

FYI TheRedProject is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia who knows how to make thoughtful nominations and be civil with other editors.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Let's have a look at what the sources say (I'm ignoring the dead links):
[5] artslant is a portfolio website, anyone can create a profile. It is not an independent, reliable source.

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

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

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

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

[10] is not an independent, reliable source

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

[12] doesn't mention the subject

[13] indiegogo is not an independent, reliable source

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

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

UTC)

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

more unproductive comments by blocked editor

Theredproject 96.127.242.226 Vexations and duffbeerforme I agree with you… DELETE this article today!

The truth is that NEW YORK FASHION WEEK, Anna Sui, Carolina Herrera and all the top designers and celebrities who attended Camilo Him’s exhibit at the Lincoln Center (and there are plenty of photos to show it to be so) know nothing but weekend Wikipedia trolls who don’t get to go out of the house do! LOL

You can’t denied any of the facts… including that his work is now part of LACMA!

It was funny, I ran into a Wikipedia page recently of a very FAMOUS fashion personality that was tagged for deletion too on similar insane grounds… Have a great Sunday going over more people you have no clue about and will never have! DELETE… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlaich (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

more silliness

Theredproject 96.127.242.226 Vexations duffbeerforme Slatersteven What are you waiting for?

At least be honest, you can’t disprove that Camilo Him is a fashion photographer that has been celebrated by peers in his industry and honored by top fashion designers and NEW YORK FASHION WEEK and has worked for top fashion magazines… end of story DELETE!

Enjoy your Sunday chained to your mom’s basement washing machine trolling some more articles…Vlaich (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not down to us to prove he is not a fashion designer who has has been celebrated by peers in his industry and honored by top fashion designers and NEW YORK FASHION WEEK and has worked for top fashion magazines. It is down to you to prove this by linking to in depth coverage of him in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

U Jin Jo[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Nurse (vaudeville)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education Not for Sale[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Anders Nelson[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myši Natálie Mooshabrové[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kalibův zločin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikael Gregorsky[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sardar Malik[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vlčí jáma (novel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smyčka[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Maria Plojhar[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invalidní sourozenci[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Král železný, král zlatý[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Konec starých časů[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lekce tvůrčího psaní[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lovci orchidejí[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Mord[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

František Flos[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magdalena (novel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Na krásné samotě[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nemodlenec[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olga poznává život[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pan Theodor Mundstock[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putování slepého hada za pravdou[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Příběh kriminálního rady[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the guidelines also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK #5. SportingFlyer talk 06:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to Herta Müller~~. "Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet" is the subtitle of Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, which makes it a little unclear that it's a separate book at all. All the top Google hits for this in quotes are about Der Teufel. German Wikipedia doesn't have an article for either book and their article about the author, which is more detailed than our own, doesn't mention Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet except as a subtitle. If it is a standalone book then, despite WP:NBOOK #5, a standalone article isn't the best way to organise the information, in my view, unless and until we have more to say about it than this stub. I wasn't able to find sources with which to do that. Mortee (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect should be to Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, the collection which contains this lecture series, and takes its name as a subtitle. Mortee (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the nomination does not request deletion. As for the topic, this source, explains that it was a series of lectures which were subsequently published. Per WP:BEFORE, nominators should establish the nature of the topic before starting another page just so that other editors are made to explain the matter to them. As James500 explained, the fact that the author is a Nobel-winner, is enough. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Reverted. The discussion has several keeps already, so redirecting is not really appropriate right now. WP:BOLD doesn't really apply when it's already under discussion. ansh 666 00:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Is This Thing Cursed?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proti všem[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

První parta[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case of Unfaithful Klara[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudá záře nad Kladnem[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stříbrný vítr[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone Horizons (1953 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koncert (1954 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Millions on the Island[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven Without Love[edit]

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

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

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

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

Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of two made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had a rough look and I couldn't find any third party sources talking about this article. Also, the Serbian version has no references, just like this article.

Suggest delete or redirect into film maker. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, preserved by the Croatian national archive [36]. Daß Wölf 00:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NFILM states "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't of encyclopedic value at all. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis that we are normally extremely inclusive for verifiable films. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

U oluji[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Igre na skelama[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veliko suđenje[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Face to Face (1963 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Svanuće[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back of the Medal[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search for the Croation name in Google and Google News don't turn up anything but Wikipedia and IMDB. Google scholar makes me think it's a common idiom in Croation, but the top results are not for the film. The articles in Croation, Serbian, and Serbo-Croation all lack citations to anything that isn't IMDB which also makes me think that there probably isn't coverage of this in its native language either. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. Satisfies #4 of WP:NFILM per GregorB below. I'm convinced there's likely to be significant coverage in offline sources in Croation. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a common idiom. These films are too old to be likely to have any coverage in online RS, but that doesn't imply in this case that there aren't offline sources. In fact I'd suppose that most if not all of the films nominated in the past day pass GNG offline. Filmmaking in 1960s Yugoslavia was after all a much more expensive and coordinated affair than today on Lifetime, Cinemax et al. Daß Wölf 23:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG, is discussed in detail in a scholarly film magazine (see [41] pp. 17-19). Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[42] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 23:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Čovik od svita[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and we have higher inclusion hurdles than they do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFILM, preserved in Croatian national archive [43][44]. Daß Wölf 23:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daß Wölf. GregorB (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Goli čovik[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is neither a reliable source nor discerning enough to alone show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a long way to go, but I've added a couple sources - Gluščević won a Yugoslavian lifetime film award and this was considered his most ambitious work and appears in several Croatian language articles. Furthermore, the nominator has been nominating stub articles en masse, especially articles with many foreign language sources, without apparently checking for notability. SportingFlyer talk 07:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources added above and the film seems a significant landmark in a notable director's career, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[45] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Daß Wölf 23:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gravitation (film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not difficult to find sources in English such as Contemporary Yugoslav Cinema and there's plenty more in the local language. Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Topic appears to be notable in spite of Andrew's above nonsense comment that sources are easy to find in English when the only one he could link was an archived press release from 1969 that barely mentioned the film, and what language is meant by "the local language" is very unclear. The current article is garbage ("a Yugoslav film from Croatia"!? Why not "a Croatian film from Yugoslavia"?), and I would say redirect, but I can't think of a single valid target since the director doesn't have an article on here at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, archived by Croatian State Archives [46]. Moreover, the archive page mentions it won awards on Pula Film Festival. Daß Wölf 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wild Angels (1969 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [47] Daß Wölf 02:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy, and can also be expanded under WP:GNG through articles such as: [48] SportingFlyer talk 19:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Družba Pere Kvržice[edit]

(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 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NBOOK. Required reading in all Croatian primary schools [49] and adapted into a notable film. Here is an article about a theatre adaptation. Daß Wölf 01:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the article tells NOTHING of the book. It's just a single line. Redirect into the author's page until it can be expanded --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: It tells us who wrote it and that there was a film adaptation. I'd say that's quite a bit more than nothing. Besides, I don't see "too short" in WP:DEL#REASON. Daß Wölf 00:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daß Wölf. Satisfies WP:NBOOK. James500 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important Croatian children's book which among other things has been made into a play: [50] and with many Croatian-language sources that could be used to flesh the article out. Passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boog and Elliot's Big Adventure[edit]

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

likely hoax. Issue raised here can't find anything on credible google and page was created by a now banned user with a history of adding unreliable information ©Geni (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been deleted sooner; sock creation and nothing of this series has ever come out from either Sony or Nick. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I can't find any indication that this exists. Mortee (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice – even the IMDb page strongly suggests this is a hoax. Also not listed at {{Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons}}. Nothing about this suggests it's legit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. unsourced promo, already speedied twice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truweight[edit]

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

Non-notable company , fails WP:NCORP and article has no sources . Kpgj hpjm 16:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced advertising. NN company. reddogsix (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Asquith[edit]

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

Coverage for one thing; a Guinness World Record. Fails BIO by a long shot. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The record he holds is easy to be broken. On the other hand, with countries coming and going it could easily become a meaningless record if enough people recognized some breakaway countries like Transnistria, Kurdistan, the real of the mohawks and Ingusetia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all Guinness World Record holders are notable, definitely falls under WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katy (series)[edit]

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

The article is an overview of a series of entries, of which only 2 have articles. In addition it has almost no information and has been like that since it was created in 2009. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "What Katy Did" is a fairly well-known children's book, and having this article may help people to navigate around other books in the series. Just because books in the series do not have entries in Wikipedia now does not mean that they will not have articles in the future. Vorbee (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does having this article help to navigate? What Katy Did#Adaptations and What Katy Did#Sequels has more information than this article does. Also, while the a book is notable, the article in question has not proved that the "franchise" is, nor that the common name is "Katy". Now I'm not against this page existing, but currently, it has no information in it, not even about the 2 blue links that do exist (and has seen almost no updates since 2009 except for Wikipedia maintenance. --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to What Katy Did. I don't see enough notability as a series but it's possible if additional books or adaptations come out, the series article could be relevant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Scholar search (Katy Susan Coolidge) quickly reveals one book chapter [51] (as well as the name of the book being an homage) and a paper in a journal [52]. What Katy Did is included in Masterplots II: Juvenile & Young Adult Fiction Series. The author is cited in Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works primarily for this series. Seems to pass WP:BKCRIT criteria 1 with ease. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Girls' Series Fiction and American Popular Culture also seems to examine the series a whole as does this journal article (though I am unable to access this beyond a snippet). Some preliminary searching also suggests that What Katy Did at School and In the High Valley could also be notable enough to have pages, which if the majority of the series itself is individually notable would also suggest the series as a whole is too. In interests of disclosure the book chapter and journal article I posted above do seem to focus more on What Katy Did rather than the series as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After looking at this more closely, one only person wants to keep this, and they have 145 edits, most of which about this topic. Sandstein 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TVD Universe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG is totally unsourced and is not mentioned in any of the bluekinks on the page. Draftified but recreated without improvement Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just realised that TVD is the vampire diaries so at best this should be redirected to the series page. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vampire Diaries. However, article is currently misnamed, so it should possibly be moved to The Vampire Diaries Universe first, and then converted to a redirect. But subject is not independently notable, and I'm not sure there's a WP:RS that's ever used this term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was created to fulfil the requirement of an individual page for the fictional Universe of The Vampire Diaries. Such pages already exist on Wikipedia such as that of Arrowverse which is separate from the page of the original series Arrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Vampire Diaries Universe is popularly known as "TVD Universe" therefore, the name of the page is so. Even the creator/producer of the show Julie Plec started referring to the universe as the "TVD Universe" several times after the fans created this name.
Comment The show has expanded to a universe of 4 series (3 TV Series and 1 Webseries) as well as a list of bestselling novels and comic series by DC Comics. Clearly, the universe deserves a separate wikipedia page just like Arrowverse of Arrow. Kindly consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Multiple (rebuttal) points here. First, this is a WP:OSE argument. Second, use of "Arrowverse" has actually made that article controversial. However, there are actually Reliable sources that use the term "Arrowverse" (check that article's references...), so it is both 1) not-WP:OR (at least, not entirely), and 2) notable in its own right as outside sources have used the term. In this case, AFAIK, there are no secondary sources that are devoted to (or, indeed, have ever really talked about) "The Vampire Diaries Universe" (on television) as a "thing"... IOW, the subject is non-notable, and does not merit an article of its own. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My search in Google News shows that some sources do use the phrase "TVD Universe". I am not sure if it is enough to prove notability, but just wanted to add this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, the only one that's worth anything is the Variety one, and they put "TVD" in quotes (literally), and it's a incidental mention. (A lot of the rest of those are coming from comments sections, which don't count.) Like I said, even that "Arrowverse" article is not uncontroversial. But, here, we don't have even one article dedicated to the topic. Without that, I think this is not notable. This is basically a WP:Neologism AFAIAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable; just wanted to raise it to your attention. ~~I have no vote either way on this.~~ Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have contributed to the discussion, I should cast a vote out of respect. I vote delete as I do not believe there is enough substantial coverage on this particular concept. Multiple shows exist within the same timeline does not make the universe inherently notable (I can think of several other universes). More sources are needed to argue for notability (just in my opinion). I am honestly leaning toward delete as I do not know if this is really a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the newly added information on the page. I've worked really hard on it. It includes references too in order to prove authenticity to you. However, it must be noted that the page requires more work. So, patience is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the Creator/Producer Julie Plec's interview in this link: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/the-vampire-diaries-series-finale_us_58bdd9cbe4b033be1467bb14 and search for "TVDU" using 'find' in browser to save time. I hope this makes it notable. Moreover, in one of the above comments, a user provided another link of google news to prove notability. Please consider both these sources which in turn provide thousands of sources that prove TVD Universe's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Domdeparis: Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which strives to provide easy access to information. As Wikipedia contributors, it is our mission that the aforementioned vision of the organisation remains intact. Moreover, we must work towards making the already available information clearer and more understandable so that every user/visitor can make the most of every piece of information provided by us. Knowledge is a gift and lack of notability must never limit the expansion of that knowledge. A separate wikipedia page for TVDU (and even for Arrowverse which is now being called controversial) acts as a "compiled" source to understand this vast fictional universe. With the availability of this page/source, a reader can get hands-on information about this particular subject without having to read 4-5 pages individually. Sometimes it is not merely about "notability," it is more about well-compiled and easy-to-access knowledge and that's what makes Wikipedia special. With this I close my argument to keep this page (as well as that of Arrowverse) up and running. Thank you for your consideration. Please approve both these pages and prevent deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — beyond the problematic nature of rushing to label any program that begets another program or film, etc. a "universe" (which is primarily a marketing tactic or the language of an over-enthused fandom), that term has rarely if ever been applied to The Vampire Diaries. It's a TV program, with one spin-off, and that spin-off is getting a spin-off. The fact RS don't talk about the Happy Days "universe" even though that series had multiple spin-offs should indicate something: "universe" is a more often than not a term used by some small segment of a fandom. As IJBall pointed out, even the concept of the "Arrowverse" is a controversial notion, and that is certainly more frequently used and widely known than any mention of TVD belonging to a "shared universe". Accessing information on the series that relate to TVD can be done through categories, lists, inboboxes, navboxes, and good old-fashioned links. The notion that somehow the project is lesser because there isn't an overarching article that presents on all connected series in a "well-compiled" fashion is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and is definitely not indiscriminate. We don't put together articles just because we can and we don't put together certain types of articles just because other places have articles of that type or format. And the existence of the "Arrowverse" article and the "MCU" article doesn't mean it's appropriate to create similar articles for every collection of linked series... again as previously mentioned, that's a WP:OTHER argument. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital[edit]

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

This hospital appears to be a private clinic. I can find no reliable outside sources to provide notability and its own website is unhelpful. Much of the information in the present article is unsourced and it is basically an advertisement. It appears to be the work of CoI editors who have also been adding bios of the medical personnel to Wikipedia Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from several reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Listed with Bombay Stock Exchange Accesscrawl (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Being listed on a stock exchange does not establish notability. Can you provide links to the reliable sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government website mention Financial Express Mention Accesscrawl (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability. Full of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entradakoi (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Your first link (National Health Portal of India) is broken. The correct link is just a directory listing with the hospital's name, address, and phone number, but no additional content. The second link (Financial Express) is a good source, but it's too specific without additional reliable sources covering the hospital more comprehensively. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. I'm unable to find more than one reliable source offering significant coverage of the hospital. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, not notable, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have good coverage on various aspects of the hospital - e.g. [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, since they don't address the hospital directly and in detail. Each of these sources focuses on one small aspect of the hospital, which wouldn't be enough to make the hospital notable. Newslinger (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of what WP:SIGCOV says. The sources should not be trivial mentions, and most of these are not, and WP:SIGCOV certainly doesn't preclude one source focusing on a particular aspect of the hospital. The idea that a hospital with 100 doctors and over 1000 staff in just one branch is not significant is odd to say the least. Hzh (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH explains the "significant coverage" requirement in more detail for organizations. It requires coverage that "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." The section also provides examples of what would be considered significant and trivial. These sources fall short:

Times of India: Brief mention of volunteer work
The Hindu: Routine coverage of expansion
Medical Dialogues: Routine coverage of expansion
404 error
Financial Express: Routine coverage of acquisition
The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
Verdict Hospital: Routine coverage of expansion
The Times of India: Passing mention of event (workshop). The article is about an angioplasty method, not the hospital.

Also, WP:ORGDEPTH does not take arbitrary numbers (such as numbers of doctors and staff) into account when determining an organization's notability. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hzh. The first two references given — at least — are about the hospital, unless you want to say that e.g. this only counts towards an article specifically about their brain and spine centre. That would be better covered within an article about the hospital as a whole. Mortee (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati (UV group)[edit]

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

Analysis of the sources indicates that most are trivial or unreliable. Several concern non-notable awards which don't confer notability. Only sources 8 and 9 are any larger than a sentence. 8 is mostly about the performer dancing with Illuminati. 9 is slightly better, but still no more than a scant paragraph describing a performance.

I tried to Google for more sources and came up with very little. That being said, their name makes them hard to Google, and I can only search in English, so I'll admit there may be sources I could have missed.

Ultimately at this point I don't see enough to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of very-weak-going-on-bad sourcing. Let's just hope WP:TOOSOON and wish them better luck next time.

Sources: The Times of India article mentions the group once, in the list of the acts. The Forbes article has nothing to do with the group; it's about a conference on "India's IT industry bracing up for a 4th industrial revolution"; the group is mentioned once, when describing the entertainment. Then, there is a listing of awards in a "'Live Quotient Awards", in which it's reported that the group won in the category of "Innovative Act". There's a FilmiBeat review of a film called ABCD2 that's entirely irrelevant to the group. In the Bolly Spice article, the group is mentioned once, as back-up to a singer in a TV show. The Hindu mentions the group once in its report of the acts participating in a festival. Indiacom has a report about an ethnic-fashion designer; the group danced in one of his exhibitions. That's the pattern all the way. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Metropolitan Dance Company[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough non-local sourcing to indicate that this dance company satisfies WP:N, specifically the portion that requires sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. While there is some press, it is all from the Houston area, which means it fails WP:AUD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most coverage is in either Dallas, Houston, or Austin newspapers, but in addition to two feature articles in Dance informa magazine (one on the company itself [62] and one on its youth company [63]), it's garnered more-than-passing-mention coverage in nationwide sources Dance Magazine [64]—probably the most popular U.S. dance magazine—and Dance Spirit [65]. In addition, there's plenty of coverage in regional and statewide sources, including Arts + Culture Texas (statewide) [66][67][68][69][70][71] and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (serving Western North Texas) [72][73]. These sources range from almost five years to only a few months old, with consistent coverage in between. For finding more sources, note that the company goes by "METdance" these days.

Overall, WP:AUD's requirement that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary is more than adequately met. FourViolas (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "necessary" is entirely different from "sufficient." -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states, "not (exists at least one more-than-local source) implies not notable"; the converse, "(exists at least one more-than-local source) implies notable," isn't logically entailed, but is presumed to hold since WP:GNG is met. If the AUD guideline were meant to include some stricter standard, it would have to be specifically stated. In any case, it would be unreasonable to require more than 12 such sources. FourViolas (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the necessary bit is covered as per FourViolas, and the sufficient part is covered by myriad acceptable soures as provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that there are sources beyond local news coverage, the rationale for the AfD is not valid. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieland Saga[edit]

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

Article made same day of announcement for anime airing in fall. Perhaps in future (and with refs outside of industry fansites), but seems to me to be a little pre-emptive as well as having only trivial coverage in fansites which seems to fail GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 03:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anime News Network is not a "fansite": it's the best English language source for anime and manga-related news and has been running since 1998. As for the deletion, I obviously oppose it, but if the article is deleted, then I would recommend simply trimming it down to a redirect since it will definitely be notable within ~3 months. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON - it might be worth checking the film for notability after the film has been released. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - Considering it's an original anime, there's really not much info about it yet out other than the announcement. With that said, I'm opposed to it being deleted outright and would rather it be kept (we do keep articles on newly-announced original anime on a regular basis), but if keeping it isn't an option, draftifying would be a better alternative since it will air soon anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From above, I would support this being turned into a draft. It just needs more sources to satisfy GNG, which you who are more familiar with anime/manga wiki articles (I'm a fan IRL but not active in that community on here), seem to think will happen with time. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 14:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you suggesting that October is far off? I personally would have waited for more information but the current article is fine for the time being. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no comments about production, cast, or anything of the sort. It's just simply too soon. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify Honestly, we should strongly discourage creating articles based solely on an anime announcement. Editors should allow time for additional reporting that establishments notability before creating such articles. There is also the slim chance that production would be canceled do to unforeseen situations, as we saw happen earlier this year. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTE, and WP:NODEADLINE —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're kind of cherry-picking the content of those essays to suit your own needs. The very second point of WP:NODEADLINE is don't rush to delete articles unless their potential significance cannot be established. As a collaboration between two major and respected companies, I think this anime's significance has definitely been established, nevermind its potential significance. You also cite WP:CRYSTALBALL while simultaneously making a purely speculative comment about it potentially being cancelled, presumably in reference to New Life+: Young Again in Another World and the events surrounding its cancellation, an event which, I would argue, actually served to cement that series' notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or if that doesn't work move it to draft.. This seems to be some notable people producing it, so surely more attention later on. (edited for tone and also to say KEEP) Dream Focus 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact is, this anime will be coming out in only three months. To not have an article on it would be an oversight on the part of Wikipedia: people are going to be coming here looking for information on the subject, especially since it's a collaboration between a notable game developer (Cygames) and a notable and respected animation studio (MAPPA). Yes, the article is short right now, but that's why the stub classification exists: for articles that are currently short but cover something which is both necessary and has the potential to expand. Deleting it would be unnecessary and would only be in service of a misguided devotion to deletionism based on essays (not polices or even guidelines) such as WP:TOOSOON. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look through the custom Google search for anime (edit: can't post a link since it gives me a message its on the blacklist) and see if any of those places mention anything more than a brief mention it was coming out and who made it? Is there any details about it yet? Dream Focus 00:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The release date is not too far off for the present stub article to be kept, and expanded as more information becomes available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is far enough off that they don't have a "release date", they have a "release season". Does WP:NFF apply for a series? StrayBolt (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most anime don't have an exact release date announced until a few weeks from their premiere. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it "Zombieland" or "Zombie Land"? This seems to be the press release. It doesn't show up on MAPPA Coming Soon.StrayBolt (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources refer to it as "Zombieland", so that's what I went with. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. The (probably) press release has both. Does the sources (only 1 in the article) add anything beyond the press release? The trailer has it broken up. Searching finds for me 88 "Zombie Land Saga" and about 154 "zombieland saga". Also, many of the Japanese pages write it "ZombieLand SAGA", but this might be one bad source being replicated (perhaps reducing the total count). Searching in Japanese finds 104 results. Maybe the split word is a bad auto-translation. Is there any connection with Zombieland? StrayBolt (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure MOS:CAPS would forbid the use of the stylization used in Japanese sources, which means it would default to the non-capitalized version (aka, how it is currently titled). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official website says "(C) ZOMBIE LAND SAGA PARTNERS", but I know company names don't always match the final title. StrayBolt (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nom has been referred to as misguided deletionism but WP:CRYSTAL specifically recommends against announcements like this one. If the series had a definite date and a case for notability could be made, then a better argument to keep could be made. Right now, it has no evidence of a definite date, nor any additional sources since the page was nom'd. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An upcoming TV series? The promotional department plays the music; we're not obliged to dance. No crystal balls here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upcoming television series and the many similar categories suggest otherwise. Almost every new television series gets an article before they start airing. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have phrased this better. Here's better: TV and film production is going on round the clock. New films, episodes, series, specials and what-have-you are announced, tested, piloted, teased, and so on, every minute and every hour. To sort out what's Wikinotable and what's not from this avalanche we rely on sources. A mere press release from the Cygames production company does not make the subject notable. Let's just graciously accord this a WP:TOOSOON. I hope this is better. -The Gnome (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be technical, but that was a news article, not a press release. This was a press release. There's a difference: one is a primary source, the other is a secondary source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been admonished (more than warranted) about churnalism and while I don't know enough about the site, that article would qualify. While it does have a byline, it also says, "Source: Press Release" and has no info beyond what is in the PR. They edited the PR down, quoted the superlatives, added links,… basically what is done in WP for articles. StrayBolt (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, StrayBolt. Plus ça change, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Merge, & Redirect - One press release/teaser does not an article make. Save the work done somewhere, mention it somewhere to acknowledge it, have a redirect to discourage creating an article until more information is released. I guess the redirect would preserve it so maybe the draft isn't needed. I'm not convinced there is not a space in "Zombie Land" so the title might change.StrayBolt (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hatter[edit]

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

Failing notability at WP:BIO. Prod tag removed, two YouTube videos added as references. Ifnord (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believes he qualifies under Creative Professional where it states:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, Mr. Hatter clearly meets all four of the above as shown here with a quick Google News search [74]. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. There is coverage about his association with Porsche and he has been credited with the design of notable work(s) such as Porsche 993. The editor whose username is Z0 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Pakistan[edit]

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

A photoblog is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless meet GNG. This one fails. Saqib (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Everyday Pakistan was published in print in Gulf News and Indian Express. I searched online and found that since april its getting coverage by news organisations. Also added it after seeing that there are photoblogs up on wikipedia. I couldn’t find how to add a printed news paper link with references. And the references clearly indicate its verifiably and notability. I think it doesn’t come in deletion criteria. So keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaugustguy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Theaugustguy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Aviv[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

COI article fails WP:ARTIST, as nearly all the exhibitions and prizes are all pay to play vanity affairs. This page was nominated for deletion in 2015 and kept based off of two votes in total (one was a weak keep); both of these votes were basically "it looks like some of these sources might be WP:RS" but neither dug in. I have dug in, and here are all the claims:

In 2013 she received the Florence Shanghai Prize[2] for Rainbows End and Jump Johnny Jump,[3] video art installations and in -- As far as I can tell, this was an open call exhibition, for which 98 people were given a prize or special recognition. All of the original info is now gone, because the project website is now squatted by a link farm, but this google search has the info [75]
2012 the Israel Cultural Ministry Prize (he)[4] for Rainbow's End[5] video art installation. -- a NIS 5000 (1400 USD) prize. http://www.erev-rav.com/archives/23770 Unclear to me the degree of notability here. Most of what I found were news articles about people objecting to the prize's creation in 2011 in haaretz and forward. I found a handful of others who listed it as an award they had received, but no central listing about the award, or much more.
In 2008, she was nominated for the KLM Paul Huf Award (nl) 2008 Foam Fotografiemuseum Amsterdam. -- this is a major award, but she didn't win. She was one of 100 people nominated to apply.
She took part of the 'Festival of Light' in the Brazilian capital -- can't verify, and merely a group exhibition.
she also exhibited at the Haun Tie Art Museum in Beijing, China. -- can't verify, and merely a group exhibition.
In 2012, she participated in the International Biennial Exhibition of Fine Art and Documentary Photography,[6] organized by The Worldwide Photography Awards[7] in Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- https://www.thegalaawards.com/about/ is a known vanity scam
In 2015 she is invited to coordinate the residency program in the Vancouver Biennale’s.[8] -- couldn't verify on the VB site, but this seems like a admin/curatorial role; while interesting, i don't think it helps the case here.
She will also participate in the prestigious Venice Biennale where she will exhibit 'Nervous Organ'[9] and 'Border Line',[10] two installations using art videos, sensors, 3D printed images. -- https://uk.linkedin.com/in/orly-aviv-9898331a indicates this took place at European Culture Center , Palazzo Mora which is a known vanity exhibition.

Essentially, this rides on whether the Israel Cultural Ministry Prize which I was able to document at the link in the page [76] alone establishes notability. Given that it was essentially a politicized award that appears to have only been given a couple of years during that culture minister's tenure, and which does not appear on the internet except in people's CVs, I would say no. But I welcome others, especially fluent Hebrew speakers, who may be able to do deeper research than I. But please be conscious of the Vanity factor, some of which I have listed here: User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries... also it references saatchiart.com! Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Theredproject (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Theredproject (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It took me quite a time to look for info about her in Hebrew, but beside the one article on Erev Rav [77] there is nothing. The prize itself is quite not notable, so I don't see anything that may support the notability claim in Hebrew. Fails WP:ARTIST as well as WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Wasabi[edit]

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

The entire coverage of this guy appears to be based on a couple videos of him playing this... controller thing (Midi Fighter 64?). I'd suggest what can be found does not satisfy GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see one piece of significance in the WP:VGSE, but only passing mentions or references otherwise. I think a delete is reasonable here. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only significant coverage I can find is this, already included in the article. But if Izno's source is different, it's possible that a case for notability could be cobbled together. Mortee (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw was not a significant treatment, on review. However, it does look like there should be an article on Nour (video game), to which this article could plausibly redirect I think (and possible also an article on the Midi Fighter program). Another possibility might be a redirect to Controllerism. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Venktesh Shukla[edit]

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

I admit I find it difficult to judge these "entrepreneur" articles because it is usually trivially easy to find a boatload of sources that drop the name of the subject somewhere (usually quoting soundbites). Here, however, I'm getting the strong impression that then coverage is exactly that - trivial. None of the referenced sources provide any kind of independent in-depth cover of Shukla. The one source that focuses on him (ref 1) is a straight-up promotional interview. The rest is passing mentions, the aforementioned soundbites, press releases and promo featurelets. - By my lights, sufficient notability is not demonstrated by this salad of bits and bobs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepth coverage.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 2nd paragraph in the article is the most amazing collection of name-dropping I've ever seen. The article is not really about Venktesh Shukla. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks you for the clarification, I am not in to biographies but I was positive about this BLP after reading WP:GNG. His name was already mentioned on 3 pages of Wikipedia, so I thought it's worth adding. Anyway, I'll do more extensive research to see if there's something out there. JennyJames (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poslijepodne jednog fazana[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFILM: received two awards for direction on Pula Film Festival [78] and is also in the Croatian national archive [79]. Daß Wölf 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as is notable as per above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daß Wölf. GregorB (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of a Crime[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Razmeđa[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another bot-tool created AfD. Passes WP:NFO as it has significant involvement by a notable person (directed by Krešo Golik and starring Pavle Vuisic) and was nationally released by a country with significant film production. Finding online coverage from a Serbo-Croat language film from 1973 is very difficult. There does appear to be a chapter dedicated to this film in this Golik biography and more coverage found from another.[80] I don't believe for a second that there wasn't contemporary print coverage in Yugoslavia of a film by one of its country's renowned directors. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:NFILM, archived by Croatian State Archives and awarded at the Niš Film Festival [81]. Daß Wölf 20:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Live on Love[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[82] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GregorB. The archive page also mentions it won awards on Pula and Niš festivals. Daß Wölf 20:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mikula, the Kid[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - preserved by the Croatian State Archives [83]. Daß Wölf 20:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler from Our Street[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[84] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 20:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passion According to Matthew[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Passion According to Matthew (film). This page (without "(film)") should redirect to Passion of Jesus § Gospel narratives according to the four evangelists. At the moment, this page is one of the top Google hits for "the Passion according to Matthew" where all the other hits are about biblical issues. The film seems likely to be notable given the awards it won at the Pula Film Festival (though not clear that these are Pula Film Festival § Golden Arena awards, which are the Croatian equivalents of the Oscars). The page has been expanded to cover factual information. Plot summary could be translated from the Serbo-Croatian article. Mortee (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - archived by the Croatian State Archives [85], won awards as mentioned in the article. Daß Wölf 20:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil's Time[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[86] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 20:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fliers of the Open Skies[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - preserved by the Croatian State Archives [87]. Daß Wölf 20:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pucanj[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preserved in the Croatian State Archives [88] therefore meets WP:NFO#4. No such user (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No such user. His link also details awards at Pula and Niš film festivals. Daß Wölf 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violet (1978 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no aritcle can stand with IMDb as its only source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[89] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB, also won awards in Pula and Niš. Daß Wölf 20:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Court Martial (1978 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFILM, preserved by Croatian State Archives and received awards at notable festivals [90]. Daß Wölf 22:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Way the Cookie Crumbles[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after I made it a minimal stub. It received the Golden Arena for Best Film Music. Still receiving occasional coverage [91] and there was more at the time [92]. No such user (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No such user. Daß Wölf 22:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Seasons (1979 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[93] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 22:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakleni otok[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preserved in the Croatian State Archives,[94] therefore meets WP:NFO #4. GregorB (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 22:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priko sinjeg mora[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFILM, preserved by Croatian State Archives [95]. Daß Wölf 22:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Motion (1979 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFILM, preserved by Croatian State Archives [96]. Daß Wölf 22:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (1970 film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NFILM, preserved by Croatian State Archives [97]. Daß Wölf 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tressette: A Story of an Island[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - preserved by Croatian State Archives [98]. Daß Wölf 22:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Play Me a Love Song[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator did not perform proper WP:BEFORE search. Article passes WP:GNG through Croatian language sources including but not limited to: [99] [100] [101] SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Daß Wölf 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey (film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now includes the mention of awards, which presumably meet WP:NFO #3. GregorB (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Daß Wölf 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Runa (novel)[edit]

(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 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Sdrech[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. Bot stub. » Shadowowl | talk 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing does not show he meets the notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, how did you determine that the source in the article doesn't demonstrate the topic passing WP:GNG? --Oakshade (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- To begin with because GNG requires multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After a few seconds of searching found Clarín, La Nación and Página/12 all gave very in-depth coverage to this author. [102][103][104]. And the source already in the article gives in-depth biographical detail on this author. [105] --Oakshade (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade's sources. As always, it's important to remember that notability isn't determined by the sourcing in the article, but by available sources. Mortee (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evita, la loca de la casa[edit]

(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 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijo de ladrón[edit]

(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 14:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Los lanzallamas[edit]

(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 14:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memorias de Antínoo[edit]

(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 14:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¿Quién mató a Rosendo?[edit]

(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 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raros Peinados[edit]

(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 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un chino en bicicleta[edit]

(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 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Boulevard périphérique[edit]

(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 14:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book won a notable award, Prix du Livre Inter, and was short-listed for another award. WP:BEFORE, please. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is still a one-liner here ~8 years after it was created, and same book details are found in the Prix du Livre Inter list.
The only reasonable alternative to deleting this article, is to delete it and dump it on the AfC. -- DexterPointy (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. As a winner of the Prix du Livre Inter, this book satisfies criteria 2 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. James500 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has won a significant award, also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, as this book is notable no need to waste time of the AFC editors (wasting the time of AFD editors on the other hand...:). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bourgmestre de Furnes[edit]

(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 14:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Detailed discussion here, here, here, review here. Looks notable, expansion possible. Mortee (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Reynard the Fox per WP:ATD – Joe (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Couronnement de Renart[edit]

(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 14:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I understand of the French article and everything else I can find, this isn't a book by Maurice Delbouille at all. It's a 13th century satirical version of Reynard the Fox, which Delbouille (a linguist) analysed in a paper, to identify the author. Any details about it belong on the Reynard article unless/until it needs to be split. Mortee (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval Couronnement de Renart is notable (see for example, the Penguin Companion to Literature), but the contents of this article appear wholly inaccurate. Per WP:ATD and WP:R is at least a plausible redirect to Reynard the Fox (which seems to be missing many of the stories including this, "Renart le Novel", "Renart le Contrefait" and "Rainardo e Lesengrino"). Redirection is the least we should do, if we can't bear to correct and expand this article. The only thing to merge is the name of the story. James500 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Déchirure (Henry Bauchau)[edit]

(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 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a book and an academic paper each about La Déchirure. This meets WP:NBOOK #1. Mortee (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mortee. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Démence du boxeur[edit]

(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 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book won the Prix Renaudot in 1992. The corresponding article in French amply demonstrates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. As a winner of the Prix Renaudot, this book satisfies criteria 2 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. James500 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per both Eastmain and James500. Yet another AfD where the nom had no idea of the notability of the topic, didn't perform WP:BEFORE yet semi-bot created it anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as winning the Pri Renaudot is a significant award. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dernier[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we started applying the verifiability rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~: It was easy to find references for this. I've added three to the article. Only one discusses the play in detail, while the others are mentions as selected works from a Nobel Prize winner's bibliography, so I leave it up for further research to decide if a standalone article is the right way to approach this. Verifiability is not a problem, WP:NFILM is irrelevant for a play, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that previous commenters have looked for sources before voting. Mortee (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep, having added a fourth source discussing the play that says that it's the earliest of Wallcott's plays to be staged. Mortee (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mortee. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Derek Walcott, won a nobel prize for literature. James500 (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trzy zimy[edit]

(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 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocalenie[edit]

(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 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line, none notable book. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No references used. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). You cannot use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when that essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die blassen Herren mit den Mokkatassen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until article is written. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Światlo dzienne[edit]

(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 14:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traktat poetycki[edit]

(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 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gucio zaczarowany[edit]

(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 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miasto bez imienia[edit]

(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 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen[edit]

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... but nowhere it says she won it for /that/ book. The author may be notable but the book isn't. It doesn't even have any references. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 5 of NBOOK says the book is notable because it was written by a nobel prizewinner. Your arguments are not relevant to criteria 5. One of the purposes of that criteria is to prevent a WP:MASSNOM of poorly written articles about topics that are likely to have a large amount of coverage. Notability does not depend on article content (WP:NAC). James500 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mostly per nom and per the fact that it is a worthless stub that can easily be mentioned on the author's page. -- » Shadowowl | talk 21:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The corresponding article in German de:Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen shows that the book is notable. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Editors should check non-English sources for non-English topics before nominating an article for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest REDIRECT not delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a surprise that in-depth coverage was found quickly. Focus, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Neue Presse are just some examples.[106][107][108]--Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody bothered to improve the article. I think the article should be redirected into the author's page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was started because of notability reasons, not article improvement. Now notability and passing WP:GNG has been established. AfD is not clean-up. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be fine if a redirect is done? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. That way those with more knowledge or interest on the topic have an article basis from which to grow upon. Some articles can take many years to develop. There is no hurry to make articles GA status. I've created a ton of foreign language topic articles as stubs. Many were developed by other editors over the years into major articles, other are still stubs. In this case the German WP article is a great place to start. --Oakshade (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, all the articles are in the format "[Work of literature] is [type of work] by [author name]. It was first published in [date]." It tells nothing more about the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500, Eastmain and Oakshade. My German isn't strong enough to expand the article much, but I've added some information to it at least. Mortee (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: book appears to be notable. PamD 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK as established by previous !voters, and now has content that would like never have been added, had the article been redirected. Daß Wölf 22:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eine warme Kartoffel ist ein warmes Bett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though this one's a little borderline. WP:NBOOKS #5 seems to apply and should establish notability, but as it's a fairly short collection of her columns, rather than a major cohesive work, it has less attention than her other books and sources aren't that easy to find. I've added some information to the article, so it's not as completely stubby as it was. I vote to leave it in. Mortee (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Na brzegu rzeki[edit]

(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 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable author, Czesław Miłosz. The corresponding Polish-language article, [[:pl:Na brzegu rzeki[edytuj]], demonstrates the book's notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: I've fixed your apparent mistake per WP:TPO. Your !vote was clear even without the word "keep", but without the last "'''" it looked like you were shouting your entire comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have said "redirect", regardless of notability and "potential" to become a worthwhile standalone article, since the article as of the most recent edit to this AFD included no information that wasn't already included in the main Miłosz (and per my comment here that is the opposite of what our inclusion policy and notability guidelines say), but I've just now remedied that problem myself. (Funny how "deletionist" editors like myself usually wind up being the ones to fix these articles to save them from deletion/redirection.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for which you have received a kitten:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another WP:NBOOKS #5 case. I've added two more sources that discuss themes and some particular poems. More could be written based on those and I'm sure there are more sources to be found in English and Polish (and Lithuanian?). Mortee (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angekommen wie nicht da[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wächter nimmt seinen Kamm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is the sort of "book" that collectors drool over (pleeeezzz, can i have one:))it is actually a box that unfolds to reveal 94 cards that each contain a poem (drat, if only i could read german to truly appreciate it:)), "ummm, coola, can we get back to the afd?", "oh, right", this is a keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to what James500 states above, Der Wächter has been written about inSprachtakt. Herta Müllers literarischer Darstellungsstil (this a review of Sprachtakt from Monatshefte, Hungarian Review, Electronic Book Review, Dwutygodnik.com internet mag published by the National Audiovisual Institute (of Poland). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until article is written. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gdzie słońce wschodzi i kedy zapada[edit]

(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 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn o Perle[edit]

(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 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any work by the winner of a Nobel Prize is likely to be the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Here is a translation into English of a review that I found for this book: [109] The book may also exist in English, although I have not found a translation yet. Hymn of the Pearl is a different topic that may have been the inspiration for the title of this book. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A rough Google search brought up only links to buy the book, such as this one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, and WP:GNG, AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!, yet another notable book of poetry from nobel prize winner Czesław Miłosz (actually its great that all these nominations have brought the attention of a number of wikieditors to a neglected part of the englishwp, although WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP:)), again our Polish wikipedians have a nice article here, also, in addition to the review found by Eastmain, here is a review by notable critic Ryszard Matuszewski (yes i know it is a redlink but it will turn blue when an article is created, again, have a look at the Polish WP article:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-btw poems from the book are also used for school studies, see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nieobjęta ziemia[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to author. One line article about a none notable book. Suggest redirecting to author. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? He didn't win it for that specific book. Also the article content provides no added value to the reader that a redirect couldn't suffice. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

have a read of nbook no. 5 ie. "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." so this work does not necessarily to have won it if the author is deemed to meet this criteria. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and therfore we go to the article's talkpage that has a discussion about possibly merging this article ... oh, wait, there isn't one. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reflected in the article by our colleagues over at the Polish WP, or as there are reviews for the english translation, Unattainable Earth in LA Times, and New York Times we could have a redirect/rename to an English titled article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kroniki[edit]

(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 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalsze okolice[edit]

(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 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drückender Tango[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No reference cited. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James 500. I've expanded the article a little bit, using only English-language sources. I'd expect there to be more sources available in German. Mortee (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expect? Is this one of those find a unicorn thing of expectation? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: no. It's because it's a German book by a Nobel Prize winner. You'd expect more German sources than English ones. I haven't gone looking because German's not my native language, I was able to add some content without them, and there's a huge number of AfD nominations open just at the moment that I'd like to give some attention to. Mortee (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly looks better now. And it's more informative to readers. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, as indicated by James500, and the article improvements made by Mortee, it is also written about elsewhere ie. Herta Müller: Politics and Aesthetics (a mention) and review of Sprachtakt. Herta Müllers literarischer Darstellungsstil. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In der Falle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No prejudice against the idea that an article of more than one sentence could be written, but at present this is just a useless WP:CONTENTFORK of the article on the author, which already says she wrote a novel called In der Falle in 1996. The claim that because she won a Nobel Prize that retroactively makes every book-length prose work she has written notable enough for a standalone article borders on WP:NOTINHERITED; if she had won it exclusively for her poetry, for example, claiming that this applied to her prose works that meet a certain arbitrary length criteria would be laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is long standing consensus that nobel prizewinners satisfy criteria 5 of the guideline NBOOK. This kind of nomination has been tried before and it has, as far as I am aware, always failed. Why do you think the previous nominations ended in failure? James500 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on a Nobel Prize-winner. It's an article on an apparently quite obscure book (de.wiki doesn't even have an article on it) that predates her Nobel win by 13 years. Additionally, the claim that novels by Nobel laureates automatically merit standalone articles while non-book-length works do not, even when their poetry was explicitly mentioned by the prizegivers, is ... questionable. I personally think Beowulf (Seamus Heaney) is much more likely to meet GNG than this book. NBOOK is a guideline that can be ignored in cases where its application would be unhelpful; in this case, readers looking for information on this book and its author would be much better served by linking them straight to the article on the author, as it already includes just as much information on the book and tons more information on the author. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just now noticed that I was answering the wrong question (it looked like I should respond to "Why do you think the previous nominations that have been tried before and have always failed ended in failure?"): there has only been one prior AFD of this page, from seven years ago (the "second nomination" was a botched attempt earlier today -- again, I don't plan on being tricked into defending that editor's clumsy behaviour), and it ended in "failure" because only seven months (rather than, as now, eight years) had passed in which no one had managed to write anything in the article beyond content forking of the article on the author. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: so far there has been only one !vote in favour of "keep" and two explicitly saying redirect. If this situation does not change in the next week the AFD should be closed as either "no consensus; slight majority in favour of redirect, but that doesn't require admin action" or "weak consensus to redirect": please do not close as "keep", as such a "consensus statement" would make redirecting difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Assuming Cullen's edits are accurate and not, say, a misinterpretation by a tertiary source that read a blurb about this book from the Nobel committee and read some other stuff into it, then I have no problem with the article remaining standalone, since it now includes at least some stuff that isn't in our main article on Müller. However, the self-contradictory (all the cats indicate that this work is a "novel") content definitely needs to be fixed, and Template:Herta Muller needs to be edited to remove the same apparently counterfactual claim. This is not just a problem with this page but with garbage sub-stubs that get left in the mainspace by editors who don't give a fig's leaf about whether the content they "created" is accurate or verifiable. It's also a little concerning that now with the German personal names and the title of the German-language source taking up most of the text of the article, Google Chrome automatically detects the page as being in German and tries to translate the page: I'm not saying that a sub-stub that relies heavily on a single foreign-language source whose title takes up a significant portion of the article's text needs to be deleted or redirected, but I do wonder about further potential to expand if this is the state we are leaving the page in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article and added two references. There is no need to delete or redirect. Unsurprisingly, this book of literary criticism by a Nobel Prize winner has itself been the subject of literary analysis. The book is not obscure since the Nobel Prize committee mentioned it when she received the award. As our article on the prize says, "Though individual works are sometimes cited as being particularly noteworthy, the award is based on an author's body of work as a whole." In this particular case, the Nobel Prize committee did not mention any specific book by her but rather the award was given for her entire body of work. The book is not a novel but rather an analysis of the poetry of three notable writers working under dictatorships. Any editor who reads German well can easily expand the article further. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons so eloquently put by Cullen328 above (note, i am not a member of the Cullen fanclub, the penguin cabal (SQUAWK!!) on the other hand.... :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced further with a handful of good sources, there are more out there, and an expansion is possible. Meets BK 1 and 5. Sam Sailor 12:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Druga przestrzen[edit]

(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 13:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To (play)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 13:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just wondering, when does a book of poetry have to meet WP:NFILM (could this reflect that in their hurry to nominate so many articles for deletion that the nominator appears not to have made even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE)?, anyway, another collection of poetry that meets WP:NBOOK, lots of info/references at PolishWP article, so either a keep, or if editors are uncomfortable at leaving such a tiny stub a redirect to Czesław Miłosz until someone writes something more stubstantial (at the very least it needs to be renamed to To (poetry)). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). No comment on whether a rename is necessary. James500 (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It would be a speedy or snow keep if this hadn't somehow stayed open for a week, because the nomination contains no valid argument for deletion and frankly, if a topic appears in the EB, there is no question that it should be included in Wikipedia. @Petergans: With the greatest of respect, I think you have misunderstood both our basis for including articles and our basis for deleting them. You are free to replace this version of the article with one that reflects the latest research and/or move it to a more appropriate title. It doesn't need to be deleted first. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silicic acid[edit]

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

This article is purely conjectural. There is almost no published evidence for the existence of silicic acid. The best reference that I can find is R.K. Iler (1979), "The chemistry of silica: solubility...". Greenwood & Earnshaw(2nd, p. 346, table 9.9) quote a solubility for "orthsilicic acid" of 7*10^-4M, presumably from that reference, but no temperature or other details are given. Petergans (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable. There is, for example, an article on this topic at Encylopedia Britanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/silicic-acid. There are literally thousands of scientific articles with "silicic acid" in the title. This is a problem that should be solved through editing (possibly by reverting to an older version of the article if the major changes made in May 2018 are the concern), rather than by deletion. We have plenty of article about chemical compounds that don't actually exist (see Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds for some examples) so that isn't a reason alone to delete an article. They are included in Wikipedia because they are discussed in reliable secondary sources. The key in these situations is to clearly and accurately describe what is known about the chemical and what isn't. ChemNerd (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comment. May I point out that I believe the citations to be fictitious. Certainly there is no mention of a silicic acid in Greenwood & Earnshaw, 2nd. edn. Petergans (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I am genuinely confused by your use of "fictitious".

For reference's sake: "...there are also numerous hydrates and distinct silicic acids in very dilute aqueous solutions, but these tend to be rather insoluble and rapidly precipitate with further condensation when aqueous solutions of soluble silicates are acidified. Structural information is sparse, particularly for the solid state, but in solution evidence has been claimed for at least 5 species (Table 9.9). It is unlikely that any of these species exist in the solid state since precipitation is accompanied by further condensation and cross-linking to form "polysilicic acids" of indefinite and variable composition [SiO
_x(OH)
_4-2x]_n" Greenwood and Earnshaw second edition, p. 346.

The problem here is that the information in table 9.9 (G&E) appears to be unreferenced. The phrase "evidence has been claimed" is very suspicious. I will accept these claims if an original publication can be referenced. Petergans (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is R. K. Iler, The Chemistry of Silica (1979). Quoting p. 180, from among many uses of the term: "Characteristics of Silicic Acid: Since Si(OH)
₄ has never been isolated or even obtained in a concentrated solution without considerable polymerization, very little is known about its physical or chemical properties. Most measurements have therefore been made in very dilute solutions."

Just so. It's all speculation. Petergans (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, more recently: "Although the dominant silicate species in solution is usually the silicic acid monomer [...] many important processes and reactions, including gel and colloid formation and solubilization of toxic metals, are associated with larger oligomers that become populated only at high concentrations. It is generally accepted that 16 distinct oligomers beyond the dimer have been conclusively identified in aqueous solutions to date, with the largest of these containing eight silicon atoms" Cho et al. (2006).

~~I'll check that one. It doesn't sound like anything that is in the article at present. I would expect some similarity with oligophosphoric acids. Petergans (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Unfortunately the abstract does not specify which solvent was used. Can you obtain the information? Petergans (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

This article is concerned with silicates, not silicic acid(s) Petergans (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And: "Here we show a simple procedure to selectively synthesize orthosilicic acid and its dimer, cyclic trimer and tetramer in organic solvents. Isolation of orthosilicic acid, the dimer and the cyclic tetramer as hydrogen-bonded crystals with tetrabutylammonium halides and the cyclic trimer as solvent-containing crystals is also described. The solid-state structures of these compounds are unambiguously clarified by single crystal X-ray and neutron diffraction studies." Igarashi et al. (2017).

This is citeable. Note: the solvent was based on DMSO Petergans (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on substances that are only hypothetical, or even purely fictional. Being difficult to isolate, hard to characterize, known primarily for its derivatives, etc., are not reasons to be excluded from an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly deprecate the inclusion of speculation in WP. One of the basic tenets is that material should be verifiable. Petergans (talk)}

But speculation, done by scientists — whose job is in part to speculate — is verifiable. Our duty here includes the reporting of conjectures and untested hypotheses. The Higgs boson did not suddenly become an encyclopedic topic in July 2012. Planet Nine might not exist at all, but the astronomers have good reason to think it might, and what they have said on the subject is eminently verifiable. The same applies, for example, to conjectures about chemical behavior of short-lived isotopes. Our article on tennessine says that it "is expected to be a volatile metal that neither forms anions nor achieves high oxidation states". This cannot yet be tested in the laboratory, but that's not what "verifiability" means where Wikipedia policy is concerned. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum While looking for recent-ish overviews of this topic, I found "the silicon content of beer". I think that's a sign I should go take a drink. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! My point is that there is a difference between prediction - as published by Higgs - and speculation, or to put more crudely, guesswork. It is obvious that there should be similarities between silicate and phosphate chemistry as the elements are neighbours in the periodic table. That Si(OH)₄ is not observed with aqueous solutions is a result of the insolubility of its anhydride, SiO₂. Petergans (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heck, it's even in my old print edition of the EB, on pp. 805 and 809 of volume 10 (Réti to Solovets). Add to that 2,700+ hits on JSTOR, a couple thousand exact-title matches on WorldCat, and over 93,000 hits on Google Scholar, and it's plain that we ought to have an article under this name. Problems can be solved through the regular course of editing (which includes reverting, as mentioned above). XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found many literature references to substances such as "silicic acid, sodium salt". These clearly do not refer to silicic acid itself, the topic of the article under consideration here. Petergans (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silica is very slightly soluble in water, forming stable solutions. (Diatoms depend on silica dissolved in seawater, phytoliths are formed from silica dissolved in sap, etc.) I have seen no claim that the solution consists of neutral SiO
₂ molecules or polymers thereof. All sources that I have seen that discuss the subject assume that it gets hydrated forming silicic acid and silicate ions (and one could not have one without the other, correct?) Thus silicic acids are no more 'fictitious' than carbonic acid, or the hundreds of compounds that have been detected only in very extreme situations like outer space or trapped in solid argon.
If you give me a few days, I will try to find a more positive recent reference with concrete evidence for those compounds.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but unfortunately not conclusive. The skeletal silica may be formed from silicate ions which are present in seawater. Petergans (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Britannica has an article, plus the other references mentioned above, it's an encyclopedic topic. I take the nominator's views very seriously given their career, but I think this applies whether they're right or not. The question is, if the claims are false, can they be debunked within the article without using WP:OR? The notability of the topic, whether as a real acid or a widely-held misconception, seems clear. The article should remain either way. Mortee (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arises because there are two distinct chemical entities which, in common usage, may be called by the name "silicic acid". The chemical formulae are SiO₂ and Si(OH)₄, which clearly are not the same. This will need to be explained. Petergans (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think SiO, and SiOH are the same compound- an oxide of Si (silicon). The difference in presence or absence of the H is due to the availability or scarcity of hydrogen, added in more acidic conditions. (This is simple inorganic chemistry)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.248.204 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The use of the term "silicic acid" was unambiguous and was used for the species silicon dioxide in its various forms. Strictly speaking a compound with the formula SiO₂ should be called "silicic acid anhydride. Then, with the publication, in 2017, of the paper by Igarashi et al. (2017), a compound with the chemical formula Si(OH)₄ was synthesized and was called orthosilicic acid. Thanks to user:XOR'easter for finding this article. In consequence the term "silicic acid" has become ambiguous as it can refer to compounds with different chemical formulae. Nothing in the present article refers to the compound with the formula Si(OH)₄. Therefore the article should be deleted. I have prepared an alternative article in my sandbox. I suggest that it's title could be Silicic acids as the paper describes more than one compound that can be described as a silicic acid. If this is agreed, I will add new section to the article silicon dioxide to clarify the possible confusion caused by the historic use of the term silicic acid. Petergans (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete & it was redirect from mainspace to userspace. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Nike Premier Cup[edit]

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

Underage tournament and not notable per WP:NFOOTY Coderzombie (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful imprisonment of Victor Nealon[edit]

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

Fails WP GNG and BLp is violated Duostines (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, see WP:CRIME. -- » Shadowowl | talk 13:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I'd say this is NCRIME - as the case is notable due to the lack of a crime being committed and the campaign to free this individual and the subsequent campaign (to present) to receive compensation (the original rape he was convicted for probably wouldn't have been notable without the wrongful conviction angle). In any event - this is a high profile wrongful conviction case, with national British coverage spanning for several years and well as coverage in some books - so it should pass NCRIME/GNG. I don't see how BLP is violated, and covering someone's clearly wrongful conviction (clearly) is probably better than not covering it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ONGOING, WP:SIGCOV in national press over the course of the 5 years since the release of this wrongfully convicted man from prison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a keep based on extended coverage (i.e. WP:GNG) but Duostines, could you explain what concern you have about BLP violations? I don't see any here. Mortee (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) This AfD proposal was submitted on the basis of the contested list having only one item in it. Since the time the proposal was submitted, editors have added more items on the list. Whether or not the items legitimately appear on the list is a subject that would be discussed, if at all, on the article's talk page and, of course, not here. In any case, the basis for the AfD proposal exists no more. Therefore, the proposal is withdrawn. The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A list that fails WP:LISTPURP, having only one item in it. Not much to say about this state of affairs, really. The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I repeatedly pointed out in the prior discussion, five of the six articles that were once here were simultaneously up for deletion, due to not being properly sourced as having any notability at all — so any disagreement about whether six, five, four or three articles were enough to justify a list was irrelevant, because its reduction to a list of one thing was imminent. And now it's happened exactly as I pointed out: this is a list of one thing. And Canada doesn't really have any significant number of housing cooperatives that are actually notable or sourceable enough to warrant encyclopedia articles, so there's no prospect of it getting reexpanded back to a useful or list-justifying number of entries either. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally it would be appalling behavior to renominate so soon, but in this case it seems completely justified as this manifestly is not a list anymore. If the community decided we shouldn’t have all but one of the items that were previously on the list, it follows that the list shouldn’t exist either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not OK to keep listing articles on AfD until you get the result you want, as is being done here. This article should be kept to discourage that sort of behaviour. Also, I think there is the potential for other notable co-ops to be found (given time). -Mparrault (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, I had no part in previous listings. In the most recent AfD, which was the first time I got involved with this subject, I witnessed the items in the list getting deleted one by one. Before the list dwindled down to two items, the AfD was closed. The closing was premature in my humble opinion but that was what was decided. I submitted this AfD for the only reason that the list contains one single item and therefore cannot, by any reasonable measure, be considered a list. It serves no encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever.

Secondly, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we are not posting up articles on the basis of speculations about the future. If it so happens that many more housing co-ops sprout up in Candada, I'd welcome the recreation of this list. As it now is, it's a carcass. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Mparrault about wanting to discourage the behavior. Maybe "List of" should be dropped from the title, by a move to Housing cooperatives in Canada (currently a redlink) and some material could be moved from Housing cooperative#Canada (which is pretty long). I grant that a list-article of notable examples doesn't need to be split out from a main article, unless the list has gotten largish. So fine, redirect this back to the current main article (Housing cooperative#Canada) or, better, split out / develop Housing cooperatives in Canada. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly retire this nonsense about "discouraging the behavior," both you Doncram and Mparrault. There is nothing to "discourage" or "encourage" so please drop the silliness. The article, as it now stands, is not the same article any more. The previous AfD started with some six items in the list; now, it's a list of only one item. Try and see what is really going on here: This is a non-list. This list is dead. It's an ex-list. -The Gnome (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has gone on seems obnoxious to me. It seems that five separate articles have been deleted outright, without moving any details over to this list-article, so there were then just redlinks which have then been stripped out. List items do not have to have to link to articles to exist. Anyhow, I went back to a previous version and restored 5 items that had been stripped out, so now it is a list of six again. I don't have access to the corresponding five deleted articles, to add references conveniently. I guess I could/should request restoration of the five separate articles to get material to merge back here. --Doncram (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list might eventually stay on, or be deleted; nobody knows. And I do not much care either way. What matters the most is the obnoxious behavior you seem to exhibit, Doncram, and you know very well this is not the first time. We all have better things to do in Wikipedia, I'm sure, than wasting time with this sort of childish tantrums! This AfD proposal has been made in entirely good faith: A list with only one item in it is by definition not a list; it's a travesty of the very concept. But if every time someone who proposes to delete an article that's for some reason dear to your heart you begin to behave boorishly ("you're having a brain freeze", and other such stupidities), then dialogue and collaboration collapse. You are advised to behave. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Self-written promo for his own books, no independent sources or evidence of notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyadhar Durgekar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR. Autobiographical. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeusz i Eurydyka[edit]

(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 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiersze ostatnie[edit]

(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 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note as the author Czesław Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reflected in the article by our Polish WP colleagues, at the very least a redirect until a more substantial article is broken out. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das Schweigen[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this play is notable. Although it is not a film, so could not possibly be notable by those standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to add a couple of English-language sources and there are more in German. The playwright received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2004, so many of her works have been subject of considerable academic discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Elfriede Jelinek, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Der Tod und das Mädchen II[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a play, not a film, and the playwright received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2004, so many of her works have been subject of considerable academic discussion. I was able to add a couple of English-language sources and there are more in German. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepPlay with adequate sources for notability. PamD 12:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Elfriede Jelinek, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das Werk[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a play, not a film, although it looks like a TV movie adaptation was done. The playwright is notable and there is quite a bit of academic discussion of her work, so I would not be surprised if this play is also notable. Will comment again after I've had a chance to research further. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following up from earlier, there appear to be quite a few sources including multiple academic analyses, although much of it is in German. The playwright won the Nobel Prize in Literature the year after this play came out, so not surprisingly her work became the subject of much discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are indeed English language sources that show this is notable. However, I'm sure there's even more in German. I've added one English language source I found. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Intro claims Das Werk does not meet the GNG or NFILM. In my review it meets the WP:GNG and NFILM is irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: play has adequate sources for notability. PamD 12:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RL0919, Megalibrarygirl, gidonb and PamD. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Elfriede Jelinek, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 12:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In der Falle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 12:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 12:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 12:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 12:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Este sau nu este Ion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 12:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Sin[edit]

(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 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First novel by a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. WP:NBOOK #5 met. Should be kept as a standalone article rather than merged, to allow fuller plot details, analysis etc to be added in future. Mortee (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:NBOOK. This appears to be among the many, many AfD nominations by this user with the statement "Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG." ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mortee. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This World and the Other[edit]

(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 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Novel by winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. WP:NBOOKS #5. Mortee (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mortee. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveller's Baggage[edit]

(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 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is by a Nobel Prize Laureate, so WP:NBOOK #5 may apply. As it's a collection of articles, it may not be as notable as the author's novels, however. Mortee (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). I don't think 'collection of articles' has any bearing on that criteria, as such compilations do get separately reviewed when published under the authority of the author of the articles. James500 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Portugal[edit]

(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 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's obvious now the nom is simply cut-and-paisting deletion rationale on a AfD fishing expedition for non-English topic articles created years ago with zero regard to WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-CONTENT (the latter being policy). In less than two seconds I found very in-depth coverage from The New York Times and Publishers Weekly. [110][111] I'm wondering if the nom even read the stub. I should point out that all AfD's generate the page Introduction to deletion process which states, "Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved."--Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has no sources and thus fails verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, per Wikipedia:Notability and specifically WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (bold not mine but in WP:N). How does a topic "fail" verifiability when the topic is verified? --Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not verrified until the sources are in the article. The article needs sources. NEXIST has been abused for too long if you can use it to justify having an article with no sources. If these sources exist, add them to the article. Letting articles sit with no sources is a sign that they are not notable. In fact NEXIST is really an excuse for laziness. To bring up counters to no sources in deletion debates, you should at least have to put them in the article. In this case, you have failed to do such. There is no vefifying if the article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, so you don't believe the topic's existence is verified until you see coverage in its English Wikipedia article? You really think The New York Times made up his and his book's existence? You're WP:POINT opinion on EXIST is noted, but if you'd like to change Wikipedia:Notability, you need to make a case in the WP:N talk page, not push your agenda on an Afd. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, you there? Really trying to understand your logic here. You don't believe an topic's existence is verified unless you see sources in it's English Wikipedia article?--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a section on critical assessment of the book, along with references to the two reviews that Oakshade found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a third reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to sources already mentioned, this book was reviewed in World Literature Today (JSTOR 40157243), The Washington Post[112], New Statesman[113], and The Spectator[114], among others. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the above demonstrations of notability, which cover WP:NBOOKS #1. Mortee (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG by a wide margin with many periodical book reviews. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Painting and Calligraphy[edit]

(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 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Novel by winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. WP:NBOOKS #5. Mortee (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mortee. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions That DL Had[edit]

(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 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Novel by winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. WP:NBOOKS #5. Mortee (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mortee. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faux passeports[edit]

(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 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly states this novel won the Prix Goncourt, a major literary award, which is WP:NBOOK criterion 2. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crappy afd of an article that meets WP:NBOOK having won a major award, nominator has obviously not bothered any WP:BEFORE to check notability of subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuir[edit]

(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 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L'Herbe à brûler[edit]

(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 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything at present can be said on the arguably too insubstantial article on the writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable because it won the Prix Renaudot (WP:NBOOKS #2). I've expanded the article somewhat and I'd prefer to keep it separate for future editors to expand on the themes, plot detail, publication history etc. Merging it into Conrad Detrez would be unnecessary work and would make further expansion - which could start with the French article, or the larger French sources I included (Lefere, Jouanny) - more difficult. Mortee (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crappy afd of an article that meets WP:NBOOK having won a major award, nominator has obviously not bothered any WP:BEFORE to ascertain this. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L'Infini turbulent[edit]

(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 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having looked quite hard, I can't find in-depth coverage to satisfy the GNG. The only WP:NBOOKS claim would be #5, because our article claims the author won and declined the "National Prize of Literature", but I can't determine what that prize is. In any case, if it met #5 it should meet the GNG easily, which it doesn't seem to. Mortee (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize was the Grand Prix national des Lettres, which he refused in 1965. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I could swear I looked at that one, but it's right there in our own article, so I must have moved on too quickly in my effort to get to the next of these machine gun AfDs. Mortee (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author's works about mescalin are usually covered as a group but here's a detailed piece about the specific work in question: Rythme et sujet. L ‘infini turbulent d’Henri Michaux. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC

I did see this, but didn't consider it enough because I didn't find a second. I'd be happy to see an expanded article, but in this case I couldn't find the materials. Looking at the master's thesis bibliography, it suggests a couple of directions but nothing obvious or that I was able to track down. I have no strong objection to keeping the stub as a flag to future editors that there's work to be done. Mortee (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. Satisfies GNG. There are several editions (1st: 1957, 2nd revised: 1964, revised reprint: eg 1994) and translations (eg German: Turbulent im Unendlichen, 1957; English: by Louise Varese, 1963, by Michael Fineberg, 1975) of this book over a considerable length of time. This is an indicator of (lasting) popularity. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK because the author, Henri Michaux, is of exceptional historical importance, such that you would expect his works to be studied. His importance is explained by his biography in The Penguin Companion to Literature (Penguin Books, 1969, ed. Anthony Thorlby, volume 2 (European Literature), page 534). The "Penguin Companion" is a book that includes only the most important authors and is exceptionally highly selective. James500 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izo (novel)[edit]

(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 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis écrivain[edit]

(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 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neel Doff. @PamD: I am not sure what you meant by leaving the categories intact; please take a look. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jours de famine et de détresse[edit]

(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 12:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's article, leaving the categories intact. PamD 12:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Henri Michaux. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misérable Miracle[edit]

(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 12:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is woeful, vote for delete.IIlolII (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comments above are woeful. A Nobel prize winner considers the subject to be worth discussing: see Journeys into the abyss. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please stop making comments that could be read as attacking other contributors, as you did here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drill commands, several other instances I linked there when I warned you about these remarks, and most heinously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination), where virtually all your comments consist of nothing but attacks on, and assumptions of bad faith on the part of, the nominator. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henri Michaux. Without touching on whether the topic is notable enough that a decent article could be built out of it, the present page is a useless content fork. Currently the article on Michaux tells us that he is Belgian and that he wrote a book called Miserable Miracle: Mescaline in 1956; the title links to this article where we learn that it is a novel written by Belgian writer Michaux in 1972. If we corrected the clearly false claim that it was published in 1972, the only piece of unique information in the fork article would be the claim that it is a novel, which Amazon implies is not even the case (both it and Google call it an authobiography/memoir). Even if the article weren't total nonsense that gets the genre and publication date wrong, it would just be a hindrance to navigation. (Note that I actually do think the topic is notable enough for a standalone article. I hope it gets one one day. I might even write it if I can find the time.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jacqueline Harpman. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Plage d'Ostende[edit]

(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 12:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an obvious alternative to deletion: merger into the author's page. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect to Jacqueline Harpman. In fairness to the nomination, the article doesn't say anything that isn't already in Jacqueline Harpman. The French article about the author does say that the book won the Prix Point de Mire, but I see no indication that that award is significant enough to meet WP:NBOOKS #2. There may be enough sources in French to meet the WP:GNG but I wasn't able to find them quickly, and I could not find any in English. Mortee (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacqueline Harpman, leaving the categories intact. PamD 12:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Germain ou la négociation[edit]

(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 12:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly states this novel won the Prix Goncourt, a major literary award, which is WP:NBOOK criterion 2. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crappy afd of an article that meets WP:NBOOK having won a major award, nominator has obviously not bothered any WP:BEFORE to ascertain this. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable because of the Prix Goncourt. I've added a reference for that to the article and noted that it was also adapted for television in 2003. Mortee (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Terminator (Stevie B album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, as tagged since June 2010. Independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The only news article I can find from a reliable source that mentions this album focuses on an arrest, and the album is only mentioned briefly in one sentence. The album did not receive critical attention or appear on any major music chart. Newslinger (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. I assume the news source mentioned by the editor above is this one from the Daily Mail [115] which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia standards... and in any case, the article is nothing to do with the album. A redirect to Stevie B might be possible but obviously the Schwarzenegger films will be the main search term for The Terminator. Richard3120 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of Stevie B's other albums have achieved notability but this one has not. I can find no reliable reviews, not even at AllMusic. The collaboration with Pitbull can be mentioned at Stevie B's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I found 2 newspaper sources mentioning the album in passing - predictably one of them being for the Pitbull/Stevie B single. Look let's be honest a comeback album by a 90s artist which fails to make a dent is not a great event, but it doesn't benefit the reader in any way at all to nuke or blank this kind of series article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Stevie B. Vorbee (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete No significant coverage, no chart entries, therefore no notability for the album. It is also not worth merging since it is mostly track listing, and track listing is not normally given in artist's article. I should also say that I don't mind it being deleted because as noted by Richard3120 people would more likely be looking for the film when searching the title, and this non-notable title would simply clutters the search. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to delete for the reason stated above. What useful information there is has been added to the Stevie B article. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes lean heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF and speculation about what a nonexistent SNG for handballers would say. The existing notability criteria for sportspeople are arbitrary enough; let's not start imagining new ones. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Grimholt[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable competitor of a predominantly amateur sport. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability in a search for reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I have no idea how you can say handball is an amateur sport. It's the second biggest team sport in Europe by the way. But I agree that three is not a big relevance for the article. But there is a small notability because she played at the EHF Cup Winners' Cup which was the third most importance club competition in Europe.--Malo95 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be professional in Denmark, Germany, France, Spain and some Eastern European countries. But not in Norway and most other countries, and especially not for women. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She have played several matches in Norways highest professional handball league Eliteserien (altomfootball.no). Isn't that good enough? --Trade (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not professional, not even close. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-biographies like this do no one any good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment non-biographies? Trade (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need to discuss the rules when it comes to the notability for handball players. Despite the large amount of biographies WP:ATHLETE does not mention anything about handball. --Trade (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I twice tried to make a guideline but nobody answered to me. So I gave it up. --Malo95 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Criteria WP:SPORTBASIC sets out some basic criteria that seem to lie somewhere between WP:GNG and WP:NORG in severity, the key component is requiring multiple sources instead of usually requiring them. It also suggests likely criteria that would indicate notability, but in lieu of specific sport rules, they are just that - suggestions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the guidelines suggested by Malo95? --Trade (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, but as someone who knows little about the sport I can't say if anything obvious is missing Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a frequent winner of the national cup and participant in the EHF Cup Winners' Cup. A former international in Norway's U21. No shortage of WP:SIGCOV either. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria Again - Malo95 I assume there are probably some semi-professional leagues, perhaps some intermediate point for them, such as won tournament or some variant? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As i've said before, Grimholt have played dozens of matches in Eliteserien. But for some reason, Geschichte doesn't think it that counts. --Trade (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources consist of links to pages of individual statistics and two articles mentioning her moving from her team in Norway to one in Spain. Hard to say that constitutes sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. As for WP:NSPORT, the basic criteria for any sport is playing at the highest level. Since she has never competed at a world championship or Olympics, this standard is not met. In fact, she has never played for the Norwegian national adult women's team and success as a junior is usually not considered sufficient for notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is very aggressive reading of the basic criteria - they actually note that those who have performed at the highest level are likely to meet the notability criteria. That does not give a strict rule to the opposite Nosebagbear (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say my interpretation is reasonable (and typical), not aggressive. My point is that she doesn't meet the SNG for sportspeople. That doesn't mean she can't be notable, it just means that WP:GNG is the criteria she needs to meet. I don't think articles about her changing teams are enough to do that. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local/regional coverage about her single season for Spanish BM Remudas, little coverage about her years in Gjerpen IF. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which is what WP:SPORTBASIC roughly translates to. Sam Sailor 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papaursa, we already have dozens if not hundreds of handball biographies like this one. It doesn't make any sense to single this particular person out. --Trade (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. The relevant issue is whether or not this person meets any notability criteria and she doesn't appear to. None of the keep votes have shown evidence of a valid reason for keeping this article. If you don't want her singled out, feel free to nominate the other handball biographies you believe are equivalent. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The assertions that there is significant coverage definitely lack substance; still, it has been three weeks and nobody but the nominator has advocated for deletion. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Art Wales[edit]

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

As the article states, David Art Wales is "best known" for creating Guru Adrian (whose Wikipedia page was merged with this one some years ago). He did this in the 1980s while working at Alan, the fanzine of the small Australian radio station Triple Jay — a magazine so obscure I cannot find any record of it at any Australian library.

Wales was then a host on the Australian TV show "Edge of the Wedge" which was cancelled after a few months. Apparently, some American studios expressed interest in making a TV show about Guru Adrian, but none ever did.

Since then, Wales has took part in several pranks and projects. It's hard to tell where the pranks end and the projects begin. Was "Nice Enterprises" a real business? Was his job at the bowling alley real? Did any else take part in Project Naughties? What is the point of the "Prudent Boozers"? And, moreover, who was Guru Adrian? Some of this seems to be puffery, like his girlfriend's burlesque show and his Toyota job. The article claims he launched Cinelan with Morgan Spurlock, but its website makes no mention of him. There is no evidence he influenced the term "noughties". Most of the sources come from a digitised scrapbook, which documents his exploits stretching back to when he was seven, which must have been compiled by Wales himself or someone close to him. And this article and the the old Guru Adrian article have the same feel. I don't think Wales is notable enough for Wikipedia. He was almost famous. He is mentioned at the Triple Jay article, and that is enough to cover his notability and that of his creation, Guru Adrian. Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has three issues. First, many of the sources are self-published reprints of actual published articles (via predigitalarchive.com). This is sub-optimal, as the article subject (presumably) is providing copies of the sources rather than the sources. To Quote WP:N, " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article". We know via these copies of sources that enough sources to establish notability clearly do exist, so GNG is met and the subject is notable. The second issue is that the sources should be the original versions of the actual sources, and the third issue is that there seems to be some promotional editing going on here. But it certainly meets the criteria to be kept.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources establish notability? He has been mentioned in articles or interviewed multiple times for multiple reasons over 40 years. A lot of people are featured in the media occasionally, particularly if they are publicity-seeking, which Wales obviously is. I have been myself. Does that mean all of us, if we keep the clippings etc, become notable enough to have an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity-seeking is a non-issue. What matters is whether one got the publicity. If you look at the sources in the article they clearly establish in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications. And yes, if you have enough clippings of media coverage about yours truly, you can have an article. In-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications is all it takes.96.127.242.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an untenable position. Many people have gleaned some publicity over 40 years of publicity-seeking (or whatever). The Sydney Morning Herald article from 1998, "A Job for the Guru" is the best source for establishing notability. But it introduces him by asking, "Minor eccentric or major talent"? and goes on to float the possibility that Guru Adrian will get an American TV deal. I don't think he's a major talent (or much of an eccentric) and I don't think there was a TV deal. The various sources don't together establish anything. They don't establish he's a notable artist. They establish he's a publicity seeker, who has perpetrated various jokes, hoaxes, publicity stunts, artworks etc since he was age 7. I'm not criticising him, and I wish him luck, but I don't think he belongs in an encyclopedia. And it doesn't seem that most people think that he does. No one has leapt in and said that Guru Adrian rocked their down under world. No one has produced new sources. We're left with an article based on a old scrapbook. What's the point?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very tenable position as it relies on our notability policy. Setting aside comments on his talent and whether he is a publicity-seeker (all artists are, btw!), the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources establish notability. The scrapbook argument does not wash as clearly it proves the exiistence of multiple reliable sources. You or I might not like his ilk, but he has been covered more than enough in RS to be notable.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating the same line without answering my points. Have you tried Googling Wales? Nothing shows up, except things he (or an associate) has put up. That's strange for a notable person.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add for clarification: I do not dislike Wales, or have anything against him. He seems amusing, but that's it...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is reasonably well-sourced, and as he received good coverage in the news media, he qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Metrics[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Lidarosehasbrouck with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost entirely non-reliable sources. The few suitable sources only have a few lines (once discounting press release summaries etc). There is the usual bickering over whether tech crunch might count as a source, but in any case it wouldn't meet the WP:NCORP standards as multiple intellectually independent sources would be required. Nosebagbear (talk)

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. Lacks sources from the multiverse. – Joe (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctican dollar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a currency but a non-notable collectable product. Fails GNG. Insufficient coverage in independent sources. Only coverage outside of its own web site are two non-notable sites. LukeSurl^{t c} 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable souvenir item. No significant reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cute, was previously nominated for deletion in 2006. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, no independent refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Decent article. I am leaning towards thinking it is notable, but this might vary by opinion. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mix of in-universe content, promo, and excessive detail. No independent references in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would 'in-universe' mean here? It's not a work of fiction. Mortee (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three weeks it's time to close this AfD, but there's nothing stopping editors from continuing the merge discussion on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton[edit]

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

Essentially useless page, as there is no practical way of listing "every building in Moncton" and the ones listed are unremarkable anyway. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename List of buildings and structures in Moncton, remove the unnotable entries and add entries from List of tallest buildings in Moncton. Also, Magnetic Hill is a geographical feature, not a structure. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTGUIDE Acnetj (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend, clearly viable as an index of articles complementary to Category:Buildings and structures in Moncton. The nominator is incorrect in believing the list has to include "every building in Moncton", and the sole delete !voter's comment has no substance to respond to. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging into a parent article or combining with other lists as some of the below commenters have proposed would certainly be acceptable, but that's a question for normal editing and discussion to resolve. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I was going to say "without prejudice against recreation of a narrower List of historic places in Moncton", but it turns out that list already exists. We do not routinely create lists of all buildings in all cities, or even all buildings that have Wikipedia articles — for one thing, categories do not always have to be directly paired with a corresponding list of the same contents, and for another, nominator is essentially correct that if we don't put a defined scope on the list's contents, then anybody can just come along and indiscriminately add any building to the list that exists at all. This list already includes at least one thing, Magnetic Hill, that is neither a building nor a structure at all, and numerous things that are very, very unlikely to ever qualify for Wikipedia articles. Lists of building need to be scoped to defined criteria, such as registered historic status — but again, that list already exists, so there's no need to repurpose this into it. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's routine to limit lists to only notable examples, that's certainly a fixable issue. Beyond that, your argument seems to boil down to WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. No one is ever compelled to create content of any kind, but once an editor does create permissible content, you do need a valid and compelling reason to go out of your way to have it deleted, and there has to be a demonstrated consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so let me get this straight, we presently have List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton, List of tallest buildings in Moncton, and List of historic places in Moncton, too many for a metro area of around 150,000 people, suggest a Merge of all 3 articles into 1, say "List of Moncton Places". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Greater Moncton. Clearly whoever has an interest in the area likes lists, but this one in particular seems indiscriminate. It's common for articles on towns and cities to list churches, schools and attractions (maybe in prose form) and most of the places on this list would be best mentioned in another way. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Out of Ashes and redirect. I believe the usual practice is to redirect songs to the album (if an article on it exists), not the artist, but if I'm wrong feel free to merge it to Dead by Sunrise instead. – Joe (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let Down (Dead by Sunrise song)[edit]

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

Article is a single released by a project by Chester Bennington. However, the single did not chart and does not have significant independent coverage other than from music mags and sites. Does not meet WP:NSONG. The article has also had a notability tag since 2013. Before you wikipedians !vote redirect to Out of Ashes, note that there is an (arguably) more significant song by Radiohead on their OK Computer album of the same name. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existence of a more significant song of the same name by Radiohead wouldn't impact the redirect-ability of this specific, disambiguated title, as said song by Radiohead clearly isn't a Dead by Sunrise song. (Plus the Let Down (Radiohead song) counterpart exists and is a redirect to OK Computer; the Bif Naked song of the same name exists as Let Down (Bif Naked song) and redirects to Superbeautifulmonster; and a disambiguation page exists at Let Down. If anything, that makes redirecting this specific one to the relevant album more reasonable) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let me try to clarify. As it stands, 'let down' and 'Let down' currently hard redirect to the article in question. If redirected to Out of Ashes, the redirects would be incorrect and need to be retargeted. If consensus is reached for deleting this article, I would propose retargeting 'let down' and 'Let down' to the disambig page. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining and yes, that'd make sense (both the explanation and the re-targets for those redirs). I'd also consider creating a Let Down (song) redirect to the disambig page alongside them if said consensus is reached. (Not voting yet, because I haven't had the time to do the necessary background research) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Out of Ashes (pending a resolution to the Radiohead issue discussed above). The album has gained notability but I agree with the nominator on how this individual song does not merit its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dead by Sunrise. Vorbee (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doomsdayer. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald K. Azumah[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him significantly. Google search for "Oswald Azumah" or "Oswald K. Azumah" results in fewer than 100 listings, mainly of things he's written. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged as unclear notability because I was too busy to do a full search but couldn't see any reliable sources covering the subject. After doing a search in Google, I still can't see any reliable sources covering the subject. I agree with discospinster the topic does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet notability requirements. As per nom. Greyjoy^talk 05:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete The article meets credibility requirements. Ugfile.com and Myjoyonline.com are credibles news portals and they are both cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintOhrszy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote removed for confirmed sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaintOhrszy. Hzh (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaintOhrszy, it's worth having a look at this AfD Outcomes - "don't delete" could strictly mean anything other than delete, though reading your comment I assume you mean "Keep". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, winning a few insignificant awards as student is hardly something notable, fails WP:JOURNALIST. Hzh (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have gone through the references provided for the article and everything looks good to me. Keep.Myjoyonline.com if i dare say is the most reputable site in Ghana. KilaBeing (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote removed for confirmed sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaintOhrszy. Hzh (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: he wrote that article, it's not about him. ... discospinster _talk 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KilaBeing should be warned for removing other people's vote. His or her first edit is also to vote on this, which is curious. Even more curiously SaintOhrszy also tried to delete another user's vote, and they both used the same edit summary. Hzh (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not curious. SaintOhrszy created the article and says "don't delete", and KilaBeing is a friend or colleague, who is not above using subterfuge to try and subvert the discussion. He will now try to demonstrate how unjust Wikipedia is by copying my comment above word by word to nominate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Avle even though Bernard Avle is considerably more notable and my comment doesn't fit once plagiarised and out of context. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppetry report has been filed. If confirmed, then his or her vote here can be struck off, and the AfD for Bernard Avle can be closed. Hzh (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: looks like your judgement was correct, both accounts have been blocked now. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through their votes for sockpuppetry. Hzh (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT WP:NWEB - mostly low-quality sources, passing mentions - being one of 500 startups is probably not enough notability for WP:NWEB. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to filter out this Meddy (booking service) from Meddy (rapper) or Meddy (Saudi coffee shop) (etc.), but that is itself a reflection on the lack of coverage in reliable sources: in news outlets its no more than passing mentions (except a puff-piece in the Gulf Times, but which is primiarilly an interview with the founders and thus a WP:PRIMARY, self-published source). Per nom, thus fails both NPRODUCT (no parent company article as a suitable redirect) and NWEB (no extensive coverage in RS, no major awards or recognition). —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough of the references in the article are reasonably in-depth, primarily about the company, and from reliable sources. The good references include Inc. Arabia[116], Doha News[117], Qatar Tribine[118] Extensive information about Meddy appears in a Wamda article about four health apps[119], so that one is good as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Eastmain - you appear to be interpreting WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH incorrectly. You appear to leave out the fact that references must also be intellectually independent (not rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources and company announcements mainly). One really good indicator is a reference to explicitly contain opinion/analysis of the journalist (always ticks the box for me). A really good tip for recognizing promo pieces is to look for puffery and corpo-speak along with photos and selected "quotations" to make points. The Arabia reference is a classic churnalistic promo piece (posed photo, interview with founders, describe aha moment, promote solution, talk about funding, etc). Nothing in this article is the opinion of the journalist. Completely and utterly fails WP:ORGIND. The Doha News reference is a puff piece published by a source which, in my view, fails WP:RS. But leaving that aside, it appears to rely extensively on selected quotations from a company source, contains direct links covering promotional stories to the company website and contains phrases such as "The portal, Meddy, is the brainchild of recent Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar (CMUQ) graduate, 21-year-old Haris Aghadi." and "Explaining the inspiration behind the project", Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree that the Qatar Tribune reference contains "extensive information about Meddy" but that is because it is based on a Press Release from the company. Another example appears here (notice the same text and quote). Clearly not intellectually independent. Clearly fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the review in Wanda (which is a questionable source that may not meet WP:RS contains no intellectually independent opinion or analysis, relies extensively on quotations from the founders, and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Wow, that's an annoying search term. Still, I think on balance it passes. Basie (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the sources posted by Eastmain, The Wamda article doesn't have any in-depth information, it's just one of four "Startups to watch". I don't even know if Wamda would be considered WP:RS. Inc Magazine is borderline, I'm on the fence about whether it should be used at all - I couldn't find any meaningful information about the publication, its circulation or its reputation for fact checking - so I'm leaning towards no.

The remaining articles are routine announcements of a product release. The 2016 article from Qatar Tribune is a routine announcement about the launch of the Arabic language version of the website, and the 2014 article from Doha times is an announcement about the 2014 launch of the website, published just a few days after the product was launched. There isn't enough to pass WP:NPRODUCT or WP:NWEB. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. (magazine) is the American edition of the magazine. Peter James (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from https://meddy.recruitee.com/ : "We are one of the fastest growing startups in Qatar. We have won several regional and local awards."
Someone who speaks Arabic, should look into such award claims. -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eastmain has found reliable sources that give it significant coverage to prove this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the references within the article provide sufficient suitable sourcing to pass WP:NCORP. If someone has the capability (or a better translator than google!) to look in the local languages that might grant us a bit more detail Nosebagbear
Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (in any language). Eastmain's references also fail (see above). There are no intellectually independent references and the invariably fails WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not a type of Yellow Pages platform. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources exist to lend credence to this organization, most importantly Doha News, which, before its censorship, was arguably the most reputable Qatari outlet after Al Jazeera (among locals at least). I also found a good Arabic source discussing Meedy, its origins, services and competition on Arabnet.me. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Olympic medalists of Americas and Caribbean origin[edit]

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European Olympic medalists of African origin, WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR,WP:LISTCRUFT. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to express my view within etiquette guidelines. Let it suffice to say that there is no good reason for this list to exist. WP:NOTCATALOG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the nominator and above !vote have already summed it up nicely, in short this article fails too many criteria and seems to be a originally researched list grouping random trivia of country of origin and sports accomplishment. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 07:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seemingly random cross categorization, not sure that there has been specific coverage on the success or otherwise of North American athletes competing for European countries to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ne vous disputez jamais avec un spectre[edit]

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

Lack of Notability.
The corresponding article in French Wikipedia was deleted over 2 years ago; See that discussion.
PROD was denied less than 24 hours ago; See reason here.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowowl: AfD works better than PROD -- DexterPointy (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexterPointy: I used PROD because AFD would clutter this page with 50+ nominations and the articles would be relisted if someone wouldn't have the time to copypaste the same delete vote every time. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: Sorry! I was overly brief in my ping. What I should have written was "I see your PROD was (possibly arrogantly) nuked, so I fired an AfD at the article, which should work here where PROP failed.". It was simply intended as an informational ping. -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexterPointy: You don't have to apologize when there is nothing to apologize for. I apologize for reacting a bit harsh. I have 2 editors (1 admin) stalking my prod's and nuking them and that is making me a bit angry sometimes. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a two-sentence article, saying little more than the book is a novel and when it was published. Vorbee (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a book aimed at kids, so not likely to attract a lot of reviews, much less academic attention. I could not find evidence of either. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The prod was rightly declined as the rationale wasn't strong enough, but I can't find significant sources for the French title, and no hits at all for what I think is the English equivalent, "Never Argue With A Ghost". This does not seem to be notable. Mortee (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Mandal[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. Failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Unreliable sources. Also apparently undisclosed COI editing with editors seemingly closely related. There are bunch of rejected AfC in draft as well at Draft:Pritam Mandal and Draft:Pritam Mandal (version 2) with same rationale. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Failed during AFC, but ignored reviewer comments. Obviously fails WP:GNG. David.moreno72 08:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No credible claim of significance ("doing 10 shows across Assam" seems to be the size of it); further, the A7 tag was illiegitimately removed, once by the article's creator, and once by an anon. meatpuppet. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rejected at least twice at AFC. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Ryan[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and there is no evidence she played a major/significant role in films or tv shows listed in the article. Fails WP:NACTOR and appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of her roles were extremely minor. We do not include articles on everyone with a credited film role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, and as pointed out above the subject also fails WP:NACTOR due to her not having any roles cited as being significant or innovative.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article moved to draft and replaced by a redirect. ansh 666 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Alaska (miniseries)[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, series got announced back in May to be released by Hulu but no mention of casting, filming, release date, or even production beginning. I'd suggest either deleting it or drafting it until production is confirmed. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and moved to draftspace per Wikipedia:Be bold. – BoogerD (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saturday Night Live guests (A–D)[edit]

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

WP:UNR WP:LISTCRUFT of all guests appearing on Saturday Night Live. Program has been on for 43 years and there are many notable incidents involving guests. However, listing all guests across six articles is excessive, the list is unreferenced and is WP:IINFO. AldezD (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for same reasons above. Only linked source is to single fansite that does not meet WP:V:[reply]

Comment—There's no debate that—although the only source for content in these six articles is a deadlink fansite that does not meet WP:V—many entertainers have hosted episodes of SNL. But there are no sources about the topic of SNL hosts treated as a whole, and listing hosts of the program across six articles is WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:IINFO. AldezD (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most of these 'list of guests on show' that are cited to 'guywithtoomuchtimeonhishands.wikia.org'...this is solid. Everything is easily confirmable even outside the 'fansite' which I don't think reads as one (it's simply a tabbed list with zero 'fansite' tone to be found). And the six articles are needed due to the breadth of who has appeared on the series. Nate • (chatter) 13:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO, also note not one of each of these split list articles have any kind of sources. Ajf773 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate. I see no compelling reason to delete these articles. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:V. Ajf773 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are single sources on some of those lists, but not sure if they are sufficient enough. Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these articles have no sources, they fail verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An extremely notable and iconic show and a comprehensive list of its hosts is encyclopedic. An article only "fails" WP:V if the topic as a whole is unverifiable, not currently without citation marks after every word. Needless to say, a list of all the hosts of SNL is easily verifiable. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - obvious notability Tiptopper (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Static Blue[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer with minimal media coverage. aNode (discuss) 04:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only working reference is to Discogs, which doesn't establish notability, and I didn't find any replacements when I looked. Mortee (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Short[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST; no significant exhibition or critical reception. Lists school scholarships as awards. And... saatchiart.com Theredproject (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't looked for other sources, so I might change my mind if other sources emerge, but www.saatchiart.com/artist is user-submitted content, typically autobiographical and in now way an independent, reliable source. http://ukhandmade.co.uk/content/meet-donald-short is a shop where he sells his work. The only other verifiable source, donaldshort.co.uk is, well, his own website. None of this meets the WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST Vexations (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Theredproject (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete reliable independent sources could not be discovered to establish notability.96.127.242.226 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Suhay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although this was kept at AfD in 2006, I believe the subject does not fit our tighter modern criteria for notability. I did a fairly thorough search for sources about Suhay (rather than by her), and the best I came up with was a local paper reporting that she had been hired as social media coordinator and one review of one of her books on CNN from 2000. As far as I can see there's been nothing of impact since.

Per WP:NAUTHOR, simply being published is not enough for a claim of notability; per point 3, a person must be the primary subject of a work discussing their body of work, or per point 4 it has to have attracted significant critical attention (ie more than one review). I can find no evidence to confirm either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete back in 2006 if you could be shown to have actually published a book your article was likely to be kept. Today we realize that suvh criteria lead to such horribly written articles as this one lacking substantive prose text and focusing on trivia of no importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to WorldCat, some of her books are held by a few libraries to 50 and 70 libraries, not bad considering the dearth of book reviews available online a gsearch yielded one here and another here, but more is needed, so a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United Airlines. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Food Services[edit]

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

no evidence of coverage in article or through an online search ... per article "company has no website" Wolfson5 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of deleting the article maybe it could be incorporated into the United Airlines article or the United Continental Holdings company. — Mr X ^☎️ 19:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United Airlines - No evidence of notability to warrant a seperate article but IMHO the content is encyclopedic and certainly of interest to the average reader so should be merged. –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Airlines as there is no evidence of independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete, no indications of notability, fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. There's nothing to merge, as the article lists no 3rd party sources. What is there to merge? Corporate cruft and using Wikipedia as a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Schubert[edit]

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

She does not seem to satisfy the criteria under WP:PORNO or WP:ENT. No sources on this article or in the movies' respective articles seem to support having starred multiple notable movies. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 03:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep someone wrote an entire book on her, which is in French. There's a decent article here, and another here. The Cannes film festival has an artist page for her, with nothing much on it, but it does show her work went to Cannes. I see numerous other mentions in German and French.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page in Cannes literally just mentions that she had a supporting role in one movie that appeared there, so it doesn't count, plus this book seems to be independent self-published work. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 06:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannes page is some kind of archive for a major release that she co-starred in, in 1971 (click on "casting"). Here is the publisher's catalogue of the book mentioned above. They do not look like self-published books. For one, Self published books typically do not have such good cover design. These are professionally released books.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the streetview of Editions Intervale in Paris (pan to the right in Google). It's the real deal, which means the book on her published by them is a significant in-depth source.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I performed a web search and was able to add sources to confirm all of the movies the article claims she was in. I added 21 sources to the article. Some are simple name checks, but many discuss her roles. With the book mentioned above and the two recent news articles, I think notability is met. The coverage was in French, Italian and English.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the IP's contributions, I no longer feel it's wise to advocate for deletion. Instead, keep. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 08:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#2c, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". Consensus in the previous AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon around five days ago was overwhelmingly for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump baby balloon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this is not a notable, long-lasting subject. Greggens (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and snow close It's been 5 days since the last AfD and new facts making it even more notable have arisen. I suggest closing this to avoid wasting community resources. Re-AfD in a month if you still think this should go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Greggens: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14#Donald Trump baby balloon and possibly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not quite a WP:CSD#G4, but consensus has not changed since the AfD last year. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Clare[edit]

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

Subject has written articles in reliable sources but lacks significant coverage detailing him, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to improve this page and am open to all help or suggestions. I felt the sources I provided were legitimate sources from well-established radio stations in their respective regions. Jessicacarter2018 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject writes but is not written about, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Bakazaka (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Clare.Narky Blert (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tham Luang cave rescue. The delete side is basically arguing WP:BIO1E. The keep side is saying, yeah, but this was a big enough event. Reading WP:BIO1E, I'm of the opinion that it applies here. Some people are arguing that 1E doesn't apply because he was also a cyclist, but I don't see any evidence that his cycling made him notable in any way, so I reject that argument.

There was a suggestion that the discussion at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article should also be considered. I did take a look at that. What I found was that there's very large overlap between the people who participated in the two discussions, so I didn't feel the talk page discussion added anything that wasn't already expressed here.

As for delete vs merge vs merge and delete, and maybe a few other variations, I don't see any reason to delete. You only do that if you need to hide the history, and there's no reason to do that here. So, we're really left with merge. There's already something about him in the parent article, so merge really means selective merge. It may well be that selective means, everything we need is already there, so don't merge anything more and just turn it into a redirect. I leave that judgement call up to whoever executes the merge. Whatever you decide to merge or not merge, you certainly want to leave a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan[edit]

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

The subject was unknown prior to his death during the Tham Luang cave rescue, making this a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. While his death was unfortunate, his role in the event was not significant. The cycling section fails all criteria at WP:NCYCLING. It is noted that the creation of this article was against opinions expressed at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as recipient of highest award for gallantry in a recognized nation state (1st order of most awesome white elephant and associated honors, I believe), and also per WP:GNG per almost universal detailed coverage now. (Also, due to the relatively small number of skilled divers at the rescue site, and the overwhelming requirements for them due to the circumstances, his role cannot and should not be described as "not significant".) Current article is a horrible incoherent mess, could someone do something with it please. MPS1992 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're allowed the edit the article yourself. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should hope so! MPS1992 (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tham Luang cave rescue per WP:ONEEVENT. We would need independent sources that focus significant attention to Kuman's specific role. Cops and firemen are often posthumously honored for one event. None of them have their own article unless their role truly stood out and had significant news coverage aside from the event. Blue Riband► 02:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) As the others have said, the guy apparently has had some coverage before the rescue operation
2) Read my arguments on the talk page of the rescue op article. We have an article about the GUN JFK was shot with. THE GUN. The one event rule really doubles down to the amount of coverage the object received. If there is alot of it - an article may very well be written about the topic. And I believe we have enough coverage for this guy. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have ANY idea how much research and coverage - sometimes contradictory - that gun has attracted? No one gives a damn about the gun per se, only about the tons of evidence (and speculation) associated with it. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point, the gun is definitively a one-event weapon, just like the murderers various friends, (Ella German, Marina Oswald Porter, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, etc), and the murderer himself. And the building. And everything related to the crime. Yet, since they had alot of info written on them thru the last 50 years they got their own articles, so theres a big question do you think one event rule is not applicable to them, but is applicable to this guy Openlydialectic (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in principle. You can read my arguments I've listed about a week about on the talk page of the cave rescue article, plus to add to them this article already exists on two other language versions, and in one of them it's in a really good shape, so there's alot of info we can translate from it. Speaking of translation, right now the article is a mess. I assume the original author attempted to translate the Thai article, but did it poorly and without knowing wikitext markup. IF we could find someone who can speak Thai or at least someone invested enough to try and copy-edit the current article with the help of Google Translate that would be amazing. But in any case, the article should stay unless nobody copyedits it within the next few days. Right now it's a mess not worthy of english wiki. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was notified by the nominator. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the nominator's delete request. There are humongous reliable sources about this person from sources in many countries. That is the primary criteria and this article passes. If one reads WP:ONEEVENT, much coverage and many sources override one event. AFD does not consider the quality of the article writing though it is in sore need of major editing. One problem with editing during an AFD is that there is the possibility of those wanting deletion to damage the article by deleting information and making it bad. I say "possibility" not "I accuse you". Vanrich (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with some misgivings. ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL. I had to think about this for a while because he is currently a huge name at the centre of news and well known, this will not stand the test of time except, maybe, in Thailand. The article comes across as a memorial, his cycling exploits and funeral are of no concern to an encyclopaedia. The details strictly relevant to the main article, and those only, should remain in the cave rescue article. Considered from the perspective of five years hence, it will become clearer that a seperate page was not warranted. E x nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote was CANVASSED by the AFD nominator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEx_nihil&type=revision&diff=851251794&oldid=845186505 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I notified everyone who commented on the article talk page, whether for or against a separate Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much weight should we give to an argument that it should be deleted per the seemingly non-existent WP:TOPICAL? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil admits that it will probably stand the test of time in Thailand. This is not USA Wikipedia. If there are many reliable sources (and their is over 100 in Thai) that is many. The only issue is using those citations in here, which would upset people. Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & delete, per ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL. I'm sorry, but we need to abandon the logic of asking if somebody "deserves" an article, because of short-term coverage, inspired by "heroic" or "tragic" circumstance - as is the case here. Does the subject need an article because his notability cannot be adequately summarised independently of the event with which he is associated? The answer to that is no IMO. All significant info about him is better included in the cave article. Were there to be some inquest into his death or somesuch, subsidiary articles might be justified, but not at present. The volume of available research and info about various figures/items of evidence associated with JFK's assassination is so HUGE, that trying to include them in the event article would be monstrously unworkable. That is why there are articles about relatively peripheral JFK figures, not because we think they are somehow more deserving than Kunan, which is not a judgement we make. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put even some of the information in the Cave Rescue article and it will be promptly removed citing that it's not rescue related. This has already happened. This is evidence that this sub-article is needed. How much harm is keeping an article that abides by the rules? Some people just want destruction, I'm sorry to say. Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As before, how much weight should we give to an argument that it should be deleted per the seemingly non-existent WP:TOPICAL? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we should consider ONEEVENT because many awardees of the Medal of Honor could be so classed. However, he was not granted the highest level of the award, which is often made for non-valorous civil service (kind of like a "thanks for coming" award, if you get my drift).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UNTRUE. The guy got First Class, the second highest. That is the same level as Norodom of Cambodia and The Earl Louis Mountbatten (Prince Charles uncle assassinated by the IRA). It is NOT given to 5 year service people. The guy got Knight Grand Cross (First Class), not Member (5th Class). Vanrich (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue. I've cleaned up this article and took a fresh look at the matter. Aside from his involvement with the rescue operation, there is very little to write about here. My opinion, which I previously stated at Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue, remains unchanged: this article is not needed. I do emphasis that I have a lot of respect for Kunan and the sacrifice he made, and I wish his family, his friends, and his widow all the best in coping with their loss. Reading all the things about him, he genuinely seems to have been a really cool guy. But a Wikipedia article about him would amount to nothing more than a memorial, and that is something which would be better suited elsewhere. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote was CANVASSED by the AFD nominator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AManifestation&type=revision&diff=851251491&oldid=849805231 This canvassing was done only to people who hinted favoring delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I notified everyone who commented on the article talk page, whether for or against a separate Kunan article. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this could also be userfied to the namespace of User:Thai Cave Person, who wrote the original version of this article. - Manifestation (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Thai Cave Rescue article could be userfied to User:Manifestation and only 3-4 sentences in the cave article. Manifestation's suggestion is appreciated but a bad suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) at 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through my above comment about userfication of this article. That was a stupid idea to begin with, and the account in question has been blocked anyway. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least provisional ~~Keep~~ Weak Keep (weakened by sockpuppetry revelations, as explained below)
- - We are asked to delete it per ONEEVENT, MEMORIAL and TOPICAL.
  - WP:TOPICAL is seemingly non-existent.
  - WP:MEMORIAL is primarily about not memorializing friends and acquaintances, which is clearly irrelevant here. It does also mention 'otherwise non-notable people', but that would seem to require a quite separate argument that he is not-notable, rather than a mere citation of MEMORIAL.
  - WP:ONEEVENT is thoroughly ambiguous.
    - In the first place it is currently unclear whether his alleged cycling achievements (etc) mean that ONEEVENT may not even be applicable. (However he doesn't satisfy WP:NCYCLING, and thus cannot automatically be presumed to be a notable cyclist)
    - Secondly ONEEVENT allows a separate article where there is sufficient reliable source coverage, and there seems to be plenty of this in the Thai media (thus seemingly satisfying WP:GNG). So we would seemingly have to exclude a lot of this if we are to keep the item short enough to fit into our existing article on the event without making it unwieldy, and this in turn seems liable to lead to all sorts of harmful (because time-consuming) alleged and/or actual violations of WP:BIAS, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc.
    - Incidentally, a seemingly rather similar topical one-event dead 'national hero' from another recent event featured on ITN is Arnaud Beltrame. Per WP:IAR (and the related WP:5P5) as well as per WP:BIAS, etc, whether fairly or otherwise, it might not be good for Wikipedia's reputation if we appear to only include such 'national heroes' when they just happen to be white.
      - However the revelation that the article was created and supported by a sockpuppet probably significantly reduces the risk that deletion will result in reputational damage to Wikipedia, so I've now changed from 'Keep' to 'Weak Keep'.
- There is also a separate question of whether it is a violation of WP:BIAS to delete from English Wikipedia an article which I suspect few sane people would attempt to delete from Thai Wikipedia, and whether we have any rules preventing a Thai Wikipedia article being translated and copied into English Wikipedia, and, if so, what those rules might be, etc... (if any such rules exist, I haven't noticed them being mentioned here)
- (Note: as my comments in the previous discussion at the event article make clear, I was no fan of some of the arguments originally put forward for creating this article, but that is not a valid reason for ignoring good arguments for keeping it, nor for unquestioningly accepting questionable arguments for deleting it).
- Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the sockpuppetry affects the article. When it comes to notability, it is not the reputation of the writer that merits consideration, but the benefit to the reader. If an article is right to exist, then it doesn't matter if it was started by a 15-year veteran with more than 100,000 edits, or a new account created for sockpuppetry. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue. WP:BIO1E / WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation. The Order of the White Elephant is not significant enoguh for this to pass on WP:SOLDIER(1) - as might be seen in Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand - there are higher decorations, and the White Elephant seems to be bestowed regularly for five years of service.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: To clarify, Kunan was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class), which per Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand is approximately eleventh in the order of precedence (out of nearly 50 decorations listed). With respect to the point about being "bestowed regularly for five years of service" - this statement is uncited in the decoration's article, and to be honest, probably refers to the lower ranks of the order (such as Sixth and Seventh Class). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the Thai honor system - however this isn't close to being the nation's highest award for valour for SOLDIER(1). The notability of the individual seems to rise completely from the event - the cave rescue - there is no need for a spinoff here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd been ruminating over this for a while, so I was pleased to read Tlhslobus' eloquent elaboration of pretty much everything I had been considering. I agree that MEMORIAL is irrelevant and superfluous here (the article has been created and maintained by perfect strangers, so only the notability argument is relevant, which simply invokes other policies), and by necessity, ONEEVENT is actually quite nuanced when it comes to topics (being that it posits single-event notability as a product of both the significance of an individual's role and the significance of the event itself). That said, it has a couple of main aims I feel should be made explicit:

It is partly to avoid creating articles that have no possibility of expansion beyond a short stub, no matter what quality the limited number of sources;
It is partly to avoid keeping unnecessarily extensive articles on people who had a small role in a barely-notable event.

To address the first point: From the article on the Thai Wikipedia (which I believe is actually the source of a lot of the current material), and from the sources that have illustrated Kunan's life, I think there is enough evidence of material enough for a reasonable biography already (the Thai page is already a reasonable length, with details of his life, family, and career; to invoke Tlhslobus' mention of WP:BIAS vs translated content, I believe it is the source text for the original version of this article), and this is only a couple of weeks after his death. While I don't want to get into WP:CRYSTAL issues, I would be very surprised if further material didn't come out to further elaborate on his biography, so I can't see the first point being an issue.

Now, with regards to the second point: The event itself is clearly notable. It occupied headlines internationally for a prolonged period (incidentally alongside the FIFA World Cup, which is something watched by approximately half the population of the human race) and has become a part of popular knowledge and perception about Thailand. Through this, the actions of the volunteers have come to symbolise modern Thailand for people both inside and outside Thailand. Volunteers who gave up their time to help with every aspect of an incredibly complex operation, farmers who graciously accepted the flooding of their fields with the pumping water, and divers who put their lives on the line to ensure the safe rescue. As part of the last group, Kunan gave his life in this, and in his death has become a figurehead for the voluntary sacrifices that got those children out safely. As one of the rescuing divers, he played a significant role in the escape (arguably as significant as the other divers), but in his voluntary sacrifice, has become pivotal in understanding the event and the culture surrounding it. To delete the article would be to diminish Wikipedia's coverage of an event significant in the modern history of a country. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Hence, it is not irrelevant here, as asserted above. WWGB (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually states: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
Both the above claims of irrelevance acknowledge this 'others', but basically point out that this requires an argument that the dead person is not notable, not a simple assertion that MEMORIAL is being violated.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ex nihil. Possible merge to make dedicated section at Tham Luang cave rescue. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

already tried and was removed Somebody added a large block of text and it was immediately removed. To try to merge would start edit wars. This bio is a legitimate separate article. Vanrich (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, just Delete as per Ex nihil. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete I read about this story in the news. It is sad when even a single person dies, but Wikipedia does not exist as a memorial. I do not believe it will be too difficult to just include content about Kunan in the article on the (only) subject that he is made notable for.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Current article is not a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrich (talk • contribs) at 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It basically amounts to that. There's a tiny bit about where he came from and what sports he practised. Then the article describes how he died, how he was posthumously decorated, and how he got a royally-sponsored funeral. That's it. That's the entire article. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vanrich (talk · contribs), who commented prolifically on this AfD, has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet. - Manifestation (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who was apparently closely related to User:Thai Cave Person, amongst others. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I just saw that. Thai Cave Person (talk · contribs), the original creator of this article, is also a sock. He was a character created by the same person behind Vanrich, presumably from Thailand, complete with poor English prose to make it look believable. - Manifestation (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't wish to appear vindictive, but isn't there something in policy about content created by sockpuppets? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: WP:SOCKHELP guidance basically says (under §Deleting articles or article edits) that it isn't cut and dry. If it's large-scale vandalism or generally unproductive, then treat it as such. Otherwise, treat it as any other disputed content. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. I can't help feeling that many editors here might see this whole discussion, including the original article creation, as an annoying waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but there have still been points put forward by MPS1992, Openlydialectic, Tlhslobus, and myself in favour of the article being kept. To be honest, I had also repointed an alternative romanisation (Saman Gunan) to this page, and was preparing to translate the Thai article before I'd seen this page already existed, so while the sockpuppetry has wasted people's time in engaging with dishonest accounts, I wouldn't say it's entirely invalidated everyting it's touched. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're correct. All the contributions by those editors and yourself have been made in perfectly good faith. There just seems to be an odd contradiction between the striking of "sockpuppet comments" here while we continue to discuss an entire "sockpuppet article". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I rewrote this "sockpuppet article" a few days ago. Others made changes too. There's little left of the original. - Manifestation (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Encyclopedia material can be useful, or not useful, regardless of who creates it. And it should be judged on it's own inherent merits. I hope you don't feel too tainted by the sock revelations. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. And yes you're right. Banned means banned, but it would be counter-productive to mindlessly delete anything a banned user wrote. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the sockpuppetry revelations are not entirely irrelevant to the argument - I've reduced my above !vote from Keep to Weak Keep, as I think the revelations probably now significantly reduce any risk that deletion will damage Wikipedia's reputation.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I would make the argument that the sockpupeteer wanted to prevent the article about this person from appearing on Wikipedia, so he created the article himself in such a poor shape we still cant fix it. I mean, just look at what the article looked like when the sockpupeteer created it: [[120]] Openlydialectic (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And someone else might make the argument that the sockpuppeteer certainly wanted the article to appear, and so created an article in such a poor shape that they guessed many folks would try and join in with fixing it. I'm not sure I'd argue that. But we'll never know either way, will we. Bluff? Double bluff? Who knows?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect WP:BIO1E Enwebb (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON - please, read this. You need to explain your position in any voting discussion on Wikipedia, otherwise your vote won't count. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:BIO1E reason enough? That paragraph basically sums it all up. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As I and others have argued, BIO1E / ONEEVENT is not a hard-and-fast rule, but involves looking at both the importance of the event and the role of the person in the event. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manifestation: He added WP:BIO1E after I made my comment. Originally it was just a vote with no explanation Openlydialectic (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Openlydialectic: No. - Manifestation (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manifestation: Sorry, my mistake, I guess I hallucinated it Openlydialectic (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. With regrets, but policy is unambiguous. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it is quite that cut-and-dry. Gavrilo Princip is only notable for one event, but it was a highly notable event that changed the course of world history. While this event is not quite that significant, it is still a significant event in the recent history of Thailand, and Kunan's sacrifice has made him a figurehead for all the sacrifices that volunteers made to ensure the group's safe escape. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion; no merging required as contents are already there I understand the applicability of WP:BIO1E; however, there is no need to delete; a redirect would do good, given that his name is quite well searched. We are an encyclopedia, whose objective should be directing information seekers to the right articles. Lourdes 05:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Sorry, but WP:BIO1E No merging needed because theres a already a minibio of him at the cave article. Curdle (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in this case, the one event is world-famous, which is sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 29 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.