Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Points of interest related to Poland on Wikipedia |
|---|
| Portal - Category - - Stubs - Deletions - |
This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Poland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.
You can help maintain this list by:
- adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
- removing closed AFDs.
- removing unrelated discussions.
If you wish, you may also:
- tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Poland}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Poland}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.
Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.
Contents |
[edit] Poland
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed Television Series
This page suffers from the usual subjective list original research and neutral point of view problems. In addition, it would seem that a category would better fit this sort of endeavour. I'm not using the word cruft, but I see no need for this article to continue in its present form. Erechtheus 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This article would purely be subjective as seen with such shows as Emeril and Joey. It's bound to lead to some edit wars, so might as well delete it. -- Nishkid64 Talk 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. vague and arbitrary criteria ensure this will always be a no original research violation. I'm not even sure a catagory would be suitable here.--Isotope23 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually meant a set of categories with objective criteria that would in effect cover the same ground. If they do not already exist, I would like to pursue categories for shows with fewer than ten episodes, shows with fewer than twenty episodes, and so on. Erechtheus 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, a series of well defined & objective categories would probably work.--Isotope23 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually meant a set of categories with objective criteria that would in effect cover the same ground. If they do not already exist, I would like to pursue categories for shows with fewer than ten episodes, shows with fewer than twenty episodes, and so on. Erechtheus 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete While there are certain criteria used within the television industry to define successful shows, there are none that are widely accepted enough to maintain this sort of list. Without an accepted criteria, any listing on this article would be unavoidably POV.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Żydokomuna
1st nom was broken and was speedy closed w/o effect on subsequent noms. My problem with this article is that it's not about the term. There are two sentences about the term, and the rest is a jumble of unstructured speculation. So why don't you so-fix-it, Crazy? Well, the term is inflammatory, implying some sort of causal connection between Jews and communism - so unless this is a bona fide, verified pejorative about which we have lots to say (e.g. Nigger), then I wouldn't propose, but in the absense of all these, my recommendation is Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestion this should be slightly merged to History of Poland or someplace else. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Whatever it was anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, the article was not about the "term", the article is about a certain documented and verifiable perception (or conspiracy theory, whatever) in Poland, hence encyclopedic. Of course, as any article on a controversial topic it requires fact cleanup and NPOV-watch. And by the way, there are more than "two sentences" directly on topic. `'mikka (t) 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- >Żydokomuna (Polish neologism for "Jewish communism") was an antisemitic term used to describe the conspiracy theory that the Communism in Poland was supported by Jews to a much greater extent than by the Gentile Polish population. Any Communist group which was considered dominated by Jews counted as "Żydokomuna". The term is similar to the "Judeo-bolshevism" rhetoric of Nazi Germany.<
- >The term has been coined at the time of Polish-Soviet War, when the Bolsheviks were supported in Poland by a disproportionately large number of Jews.<
- Nothing more about the term. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- You would like to notice that I slightly rephrase yours: you speak about the "term", I speak about the "topic". Term definition is for wiktionary. Wikipedia takes the issue broader. The topic in question is "Jewish overrepresentation" (which gave rise to some other "terms"). One is welcome to expand the article, e.g., with proofs that the term is a misnomer (if this is possible). `'mikka (t) 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- So should we rename it something inoffensive and excise the unreferenced reference to the term? How about Jewish domination of post-war Poland hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- You would like to notice that I slightly rephrase yours: you speak about the "term", I speak about the "topic". Term definition is for wiktionary. Wikipedia takes the issue broader. The topic in question is "Jewish overrepresentation" (which gave rise to some other "terms"). One is welcome to expand the article, e.g., with proofs that the term is a misnomer (if this is possible). `'mikka (t) 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve it if needed. That the article is not perfectly written is not a reason to delete it. --Lysytalk 06:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and research. The term, albeit not positive, is important. --Ouro 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improved. Referenced, and appears to be about a real historical phenomenon. Perhaps it ought to also move to something with an English language title, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- stubifiy everything but the two sentences mentioned above. Jon513 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can be bold per WP:AFD - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miho Iwata
Poorly written article, pages are in other languages. Notability asserted, but WP:V is a problem. Gets 30K Google hits, 14K of those in English. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jeez, the article needs work and I don't recognize most of the credits, but she seems to have an international reputation and a solid body of work -- I googled some of her collaborators and the galleries she's worked at and there were some solid numbers of google hits (many in Polish unfortunately). I say keep, as a stab at countering WP:BIAS, give it a wikify tag and I promise to work on it. Maybe I can try to find a Polish-speaking wikipedian to give me a hand sorting out the mess. Dina 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Dina's willingness to clean it up. A glance at the source indicates it's not as badly formatted as it appears; it's just not wikified. Powers T 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I gave it some love. It still has some challenges, but it's shaped up a bit. Some of the poking around I had to do to figure out has given me the impression that the artist is notable enough, though not incredibly famous or anything. Dina 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep due to changes and love from Dina. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
