Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Germany related AfDs


Germany

Holocaust Encyclopedia

Holocaust Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG. There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from "Reference & User Services Quarterly" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/merge to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia, which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasoning: Other AfDs including for the multi-list AfD against Damon Hill Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill have established the precedent that these lists are both WP:CRUFT and fail WP:LISTN as being needless forks of existing lists, they also have no notable group or set presence within discussions as shown by a lack of these such sources in the articles. Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus. The same discussion has also been ongoing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Talk:Max Verstappen

When creating this deletion request, articles

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Alain Prost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article, the original is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD)

Nomination by IP: 159.242.125.170 (talk)

  • I vote delete per the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen — Iadmc♫talk  15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Lists. — Iadmc♫talk  15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have fixed this nomination to actually use {{subst:afd2}}, rather than just {{la}} on its own. No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all bases on the current consensus on this subject which follows WP:CFORK and WP:LISTN.Tvx1 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main difference between these drivers and the other subjects which were deleted is that these are all three-or-more-time World Champions who should be expected to have more wins and coverage than the others. I would personally reject WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments such as those raised by the nom and above delete !voters that these drivers fall under a consensus based on the others. If these are kept, I would also support looking at taking the Verstappen list to DRV for recreation. The main difference between now the the Verstappen AfD is that he too is now a three-time World Champion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @159.242.125.170:, you need to tag all of the articles you wish to bundle, not just notify on the talk pages. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will try, very hard to do multi-page AfDs properly as an unregistered user my apologies!
    I agree that Verstappen is more notable than at the time of his AfD, but the fundamental issue is that we have no way of currently defining notability. If this AfD fails, hopefully it can set that precedent, if it doesn't then we know the issue is with the format not having proven notability.
    You cite these are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but I counter that I do not point to them being deleted and say that because they were deleted these should be - instead I am pointing to the logic behind them and the comments on the AfDs where many explicitly called for an AfD against these lists also. The arguments against all of these lists were made in those AfDs, hence why I have referenced them. I do believe there should be some level of consistency in how these lists exist, and if this AfD fails I will propose the creation of any articles which would logically follow (if it is three time champions, I will try and create lists for them, if it is drivers who have X number of wins, same again) but I'm not sure that these pass WP:CRUFT , WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS.
    The size of the grouping doesn't mean it necessitates a list - Wikipedia doesn't need a list of the list of winners of your local egg and spoon race no matter how good Mr Eggman is as the 12 time champion. Unless we can show that these articles pass WP:LISTN - "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."
    If we could get 3 sources for each driver where a reliable third party, such as a newspaper of record or the like, was discussing their wins (be it listing the drivers' dominance across those, or be it ranking some of their wins perhaps?) than I would be willing to concede WP:LISTN .
    Also I wish to note, Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen was denied just 2 weeks before his 3rd title, so I'm not sure that has had an impact on my claimed consensus so far.
    I also remind the guidelines on WP:OTHERSTUFF do state:
    "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." 159.242.125.170 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, firstly, I am disappointed that the nominator did not follow recommend courtesy, and notify substantial contributors to these articles, as suggested (but not required) in the AfD process. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for causing your disappointment, but sadly I am not very well accustomed with the process and tried to reach out to people who had been involved in such suggestions in previous AfDs. I hope personal disappointment will not factor into this however. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (also, Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies I hope I am tasty ) 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the wins by these drivers are extremely notable. Using Senna as an example: whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com, Sky Sports for example. While these win are listed in the parent articles, that is only as part of their complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of these articles. These lists allow interested readers to compare and contrast those victories. The lists meet the criteria for a Stand-alone list, given the length of the parent articles. The articles follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu. I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that lists such as these are common across the encyclopedia, and form part of the current 'meta'. With regards to the WP:NOTSTATS argument; that says that the encyclopedia should not have "excessive listings of unexplained statistics": indeed, I would suggest that by having these as standalone lists means that we are better able to provide the suitable context to avoid them being "unexplained statistics": many of the tables in the "Racing records" sections of drivers articles are more in contravention of that particular guideline than these articles, in my opinion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your argument for keeping Senna, but few other drivers are used in such a way. As I discussed earlier in this thread, if we can find sources for these lists to be notable as a set as you have done for Senna then that may warrant their inclusion on WP:LISTN - and I would agree that the racing record section can be overwhelming but without much intention to suggest they should be removed.
    As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'm not sure how useful it is because for example Rooney has many independent sources referencing the goals as a set. I can't say I've seen the same for Prost, maybe not even for any driver outside of Senna. Other than the fact it is a very long list, the group of Hamilton's impressive tally is rarely talked about at which point I would compare it to creating an article of "Letters in antidisestablishmentarianism" which is impressive because the list is so long, but aside from that, is not notable. This is an extreme but still, just because other WikiProjects have done something doesn't mean Formula One should for example. It also raises the question as to what the notability criteria should be, if we are to keep these: what level of notability makes Prost worth keeping? 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These lists might allow readers to compare and contrast their victories, but not in any meaningful way. The lack any of the context required to be able to take any meaningful insight (which is why WP:NOSTAT is mentioned). The margin and grid position columns are the NOSTAT violations. The rest of the columns also exist in their racing record summary. And it may vollow the style and structure for the article you listed for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu but the major difference is that these wins can be viewed in the articles for the respective drivers (as you acknowledge in the third sentence of your response, the same can not be said for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu. SSSB (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ladmc and Tvx1. These all are best integrated in main articles. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - just repeating data already presented at the home article of the driver in the career results sections. --Falcadore (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - they are all valid WP:SIZESPLITs of their respective articles, keeping said articles from being too hard to navigate and read. Merging all should also be considered by delete !voters, especially since SpacedFarmer's rationale is basically a merge !vote, not a delete !vote. But again, we're risking making these articles too long and clunky (per WP:NOMERGE). The LISTCRUFT essay does not apply here when these are split from their respective articles, not standalone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not valid sizesplits, because they were not split. You are the only person who has suggested that we should be merging, mainly because those arguning for deletion (as far as I can tell by skimming the arguemnts) feel that the level of detail these articles go into (i.e. with grid positions and margin of victory) are in violation of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOSTATS regardless of whether they are in their own article, or in the general article about that driver. The listcruft essay does apply because this was split from the respective articles. SSSB (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, England, and Brazil. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of them are the same as the many other such articles for sports people. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople If it won't fit in their main article, then a split off article is justified. We do the same when listing the accomplishments of actors and musicians, if their awards don't all fit in their main article, you make a side article to list them. Dream Focus 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that the accomplishment of thier race wins does fit in the main article, it is bundlged together with a breakdown of their results. The only unique information of the nominated pages is FANCRUFT and NOSTAT violations with a summary of their results (and by extention wins) accessible in the main articles. SSSB (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are all redundant forks of information already found at the main articles for these subjects. Let'srun (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the articles of the respective drivers already break-down their races wins in a much cleaner and succinct way - through the race record table (e.g. Lewis Hamilton#Complete Formula One results). The nominated articles do nothing other than specify minor details. The only parts of these articles which are unique to these articles (i.e. not already specified on the main driver page) are: date, circuit, grid position and margin which are all either WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOSTAT or both (e.g. margin and grid position lack any of the context required for this information to be worth anything meaningful. These articles serve no purpose other than to offer irrelevant and/or contextless data. SSSB (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

Imperium (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saimir Kasemi

Saimir Kasemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The subject made two appearances in the German fifth tier in 2007 but it appears they have made no professional appearances at all. A web search finds a few articles about an ice cream parlour they have been running after their retirement. But there's no WP:SIGCOV relating to their football career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Münzner-Linder

Ursula Münzner-Linder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Fails NMUSICIAN and reliable sourcing to confirm notability. Tkaras1 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ennepetal hostage taking

Ennepetal hostage taking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a hostage taking that lasted one day from 19 years ago, created the day of the hostage taking, uncited even then. Article has sat largely untouched for the past two decades. There are sources exclusively from the day this happened. The only thing I found that wasn't from the actual day this occurred was a 1 paragraph mention in a list of German hostage crises from 2010, which does not have enough detail to build an article from.

Fails WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emicho

Emicho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mess with multiple WP:BLPVIO issues. The seeming lack of information about Count Emicho outside the wall of text about the First Crusade or Rhineland massacres seems to confirm the article lacks WP: NOTABILITY. The article even had a Holocaust reference in it for whatever reason, until I removed it. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salutation yet again, I'm going to CV what I said on your talk page.
"it is obvious to me that the article in question is mostly un-sourced, and what sources it does use are secondary or "primary anonymous accounts" which contradict whatever this person did or at least claimed to have done. I might add also that is a point of contention with the Jewish people since most see him as a barbaric Christian who mindlessly killed their peers, also those "primary anonymous accounts" are allegedly written by Jewish authors, which makes this situation even more concerning. History is not about personal vendettas nor is it about claiming that only one party is to blame while the other is innocent. If those alleged did happen then why does not one Christian author (in the article itself) has wrote about it? More likely Emicho has taken the role of a fall guy to blame everything on him as a reflection of Jewish (justified) hatred of Christians." Ukudoks (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fantastic Mr. Fox, this cannot possibly violate WP:BLP because the subject has been dead for 1,000 years. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "there were many accounts stating the legend that Emicho's soul is guarding the gate of Rhineland" Did he/she even exist to begin with? For such a notorious individual we know close to absolutely nothing about his/her personal life etc. I agree with :@Fantastic Mr. Fox: that we should delete this article or at least modify it entirely and build from there Ukudoks (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A basic Google search for Emicho of Flonheim (which is probably what this article should be titled) exclusively in English returned a plethora which provide WP:SIGCOV, including but not limited to: two journal articles ([1][2]), at least two biographical dictionary entries ([3][4]), and an entire book chapter ([5]). I have not conducted a search in German, but am reasonably confident SIGCOV-providing sources exist in that language too, as this encyclopedia entry lists two German sources including another journal article specifically about him. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those historians are using at least four primary sources which have been alleged to be created by Jewish "anonymous accounts", that is the root of our question. How can we know those anonymous sources were telling the truth? Simply put, we don't know

    As I've stated above it is a point of contention with Jewish individuals that use it as ammunition (for good reasons too) against the Crusades and/or Christianity.

    Thus while it might have a plethora of secondary sources, it doesn't have a plethora of primary sources that at least have a somewhat coherent timeline with what happened. Ukudoks (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this argument has absolutely no basis in any WP:P&G. An academic source can certainly be unreliable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of their sourcing, but simply being partially sourced to anonymous primary accounts is not itself damning and is in fact quite regular in historical writing. To quote from WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect if you look at the references on Emicho's article and Rhineland massacres article it heavily relies on secondary sources. And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information. Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are.

    I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on. Ukudoks (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what happening with this article right now, but it used to be perfectly fine. If I remember correctly it was once known as "Emich of Leiningen" but I think it was moved to avoid confusion with another person with the same/a similar name. Anyway he was a real and notable guy and there are plenty of sources about him. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Those "plenty" sources (I assume that you mean secondary and not primary) are not stated on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Ukudoks (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only primary sources I can find on wikipedia (relating to Emicho's role in the massacres) are:

    Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana
    Mainz Anonymous
    Solomon bar Simson Chronicle
    Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle

    While others are secondary and therefore unreliable. Ukudoks (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ukudoks Secondary sources are not unreliable; in many ways, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, according to the academic or editorial rigor they have been subjected to. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources are "preferable" because they suit modern interpretations of politics, public institutions and society. I absolutely agree. Ukudoks (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking, why do I remember the title being Emich of Leiningen? Oh yeah, I'm the one who created this, way back in the olden days, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adam Bishop: What is your perspective when it comes to primary sources on this peculiar topic? Ukudoks (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as every other topic. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources. Judging from your comments here, I have very little confidence that you understand what the primary and secondary sources for this topic are, what primary and secondary sources are in general, or what the mission of Wikipedia is. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unless he's some sort of super human that lives for 1000 yrs, I don't think we have to worry about BLP violations. Might not be neutrally written, but AfD isn't cleanup. We have this [6], [7] and the book chapter shown above, it's fine. BDP perhaps, deceased people ? Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some here do not realize the implications of not using primary sources to back up the crimes he allegedly committed, which is the main point for his existence on Wikipedia Ukudoks (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use primary sources, we can only use what others have written about this individual. We can't do original research nor draw our own conclusions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck through the BLP statement, I have no clue what was running through my head at the time. The correct wording is that it fails WP:NPOV. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have restored the article to its state before Ukodoks made a large number of non-NPOV unsourced changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your contribution, but the question still remains, the page is lacking in primary sources and has an inherent bias to portray Emicho as a evil barbarian who mindlesly killed Jews (which where his fellow Abrhamists btw), if we can at least get a primary source narrative from the Christian side it would "balance" the vendetta present Ukudoks (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But he did kill people, didn't he? You don't need to WP:RGW here, and you certainly haven't help make the article any more neutral yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not know, the only party who says he did such a thing (one who is not coherent about where and how he did those horrible things) are the Jewish authors, it doesn't require someone to be a rocket scientist to put 1+1 in order to understand the ramifications at play. As Jews were the most intelligent class during that time period, no ordinary Gentile could challenge their perspective (may it be right or wrong). I'm just being sceptical that is all, if someone can provide us with primary sources (that are not anonymous, as it is a unreliable source) then we can understand what actually happened Ukudoks (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Blum

Nico Blum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable darts player per WP:SPORTCRIT. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2024 (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 German Figure Skating Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Vernekohl

Jill Vernekohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Nothing since retirement. Google search yields nothing but wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 8 June 2024 (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.

Dmitri Kurakin

Dmitri Kurakin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: multiple Estonian champion at senior-level championships, see [8] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustierung

Adjustierung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Germany&oldid=1229012470"