Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan Republic of Rasony

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. delete as hoax DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Republic of Rasony[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG, as it covers a subject that has not been the topic of any scholarly works (see [1] for the Google Books search and [2] for a basic Google search). All results when searching for English-language sources direct to either Wiki pages or third-party Wiki aggregators. Rarely is there a reference independent of those sorts of sources, and when there is one, it's treated as a minor, unofficial name for the subject (see [3]). Possibly could be redirected to Belarusian resistance during World War II (which, interestingly enough, doesn't mention this "Partisan republic"). Cdtew (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (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/2013 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I don't know what I was thinking. Notices sent to Compaq5 and the major IP contributors: [4] and [5], respectively. Cdtew (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out the only major source that discusses the subject in detail that's cited in the article is one put out by the Johan Bäckman Institute, an organization that is liable to have many NPOV issues. Cdtew (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a quick look through "Destroy as much as possible" the source published by the Baeckman Institute, shows that it has a very strong anti-Latvian, and subtle pro-Soviet bias; the entire work is constructed of documents allegedly located in archives in Belarus and other Eastern European archives that are published in this work "for the first time". I believe this isn't indicative of a hoax, but indicative of a Soviet propaganda point being trotted out as legitimate history. Cdtew (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it relies on many of the same dubious sources, many foreign language sources, several dead refs, and most importantly - was created by the same editor, User:Compaq 5, at around the same time. Of further note is an "alt history" bbs thread discussing a fictional WWI subject known as Operation Heinrich, which involves the Balkans in that conflict, and which may or may not be related. Additionally, see [6], which is a published work that seems to refer to Operation Heinrich only as a Europe-wide counterintelligence operation. A Google books search reveals nothing relevant to this article's purported subject published in English, and a words and connectors search of Google Books including the term "Belarus" literally only returns the Operation Heinrich page on this site. In other words, reasons include CFORK, HOAX, WP:RS, and GNG. Naturally, if reliable sources can be found that support either article's inclusion, I'm happy to change my vote.

Delete Delete everything User:Compaq 5 has created. Jstor has no literature on these subjects, which leads me to doubt the veracity of these articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no reliable, verifiable sources for either article, these smell rather hoaxy to me. Good work catching these. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoaxes. bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 23 May 2013 (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.