Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Carl Kosta Savich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject appears to be a secondary school teacher with a personal blog who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:SCHOLAR, and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources per the WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it appears on face value that the article bibliography may have been written by the subject (making the assumption that User:Carl savich is Carl Savich), see this and this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Beyond the notability and autobiography issues already identified, most of the article is a WP:SOAPBOX for the subject's political views. And the quality of sourcing is really bad...a letter to the editor of an alumni magazine, by rather than about the subject? An unspecific citation to a ten-year date range of a political advocacy web site? Completely unencyclopedic. How is it possible that something this bad has persisted here since 2006? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. How is it possible? Because it is too easy to create an article and too hard to delete one. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete - Very little coverage in independent reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- He seems to have produced a dozen articles on controversial subjects, but probably zero in any academic printed journal. I thus regard him as NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Most of the coverage about the subject came about due to the kerfuffle over the Bosniak school named after a Nazi. Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. As I fellow member of Phi Alpha Theta I'd be happy if the closing admin put this into my userspace so I can rehab it and perhaps re-publish someday. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While the article exists, there is nothing to stop you putting it into your userspace yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Moving the article now would be in violation of WP:USERFY and moving an article into userspace in this case sans AfD would violate the spirit of WP:USERFY, in my opinion. This isn't some brand-new draft mistakenly published. I could copy-paste the content but moving the article retains the article history where copypasta does not. I could always ask for a WP:REFUND but I find it easier to make my request to the closing admin now instead of trying to remember to make the request after deletion has occurred. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest move, I suggested copy, which anybody can do. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Strong delete There is absolutely nothing notable about this apologist for the Serbian side in the Bosnian War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (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.