Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do not believe that this book is notable based on the sources provided and available to warrant its very own page.

Also, I have reason to believe that the page is self-promotional. When I looked at the edit history of the page's creator 'Hyrdlak', I saw that a large part of this user's edits are editing the wikipage of the author of the book 'Tomasz Kamusella'. As well as the addition of citations to other pages from Kamusella's books and publications. SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SeriousCherno (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The main question for us is whether the book is notable. It caused a minor controversy in Poland, but the coverage of it was limited (pl:Nowa Trybuna Opolska (in 2004 ) - regional newspaper; gazeta.pl - larger paper; the regional paper had another article on this in 2012 ); and that's it - I can't find any evidence of any discussion in other Polish media, nor can find any evidence that a single scholar even mentioned this in their studies. The exception is the author itself, who clearly tried to get this written about (with little luck); and here we have to note that this very article - ours, on Wikipedia - has been written by the author himself, who seems to be occasionally active, and obviously has a major WP:COI. This also explains why the article is heavily slanted and makes claims not present in the sources (as far as I can claim), so this also has the OR issue. I think this could be notable once some independent scholar writes about this incident, but for now, I don't think it has generated enough coverage, and the addition of COI is quite problematic too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Would mentioning/merge/redirecting to Censorship in Poland be a viable ATD? —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kusma The problem is that outside of the author I don't even see any good claims that this is "censorship". For starters, I was not able to verify that the book was "destroyed", and the fact that it is cited sometimes as a source suggests some copies obviously survived. The cited source https://nto.pl/glosariusz-pojdzie-na-przemial/ar/3999409 does include, in its heading, the claim that the book will be destroyed ("the book will be shredded") but but the text is less sensational, the publisher is quoted as saying that the book will be "recalled" and "we will see what happens next". I was not able to find any source that states the book was, in fact, destroyed, and the article also has a note that the author requested that all of the books were to be given to him. Oh, I also noticed that the entire print run was... a hundred copies. This is a storm in the teacup, blown by the author himself. I have serious doubts if this incident merits mention anywhere, not unless independent sources discussing it are found. PS. I am quite interested in issues related to censorship, and usually I'd be happy to see such articles written, but in this case I am not even seeing this as a real censorship case, just some local controversy with publisher recalling a tiny run after critique from some local officials, and the author screaming "censorship" and adding a COI/POV/advert story to Wikipedia. If an independent scholar describes this as censorship, then we can mention this in the author's bio or the censorship in Poland article, but until this happens, nope. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, delete per Piotrus. I can't find anything convincing either, and the whole thing is a bit suspicious of sensationalist self-promotion without much better sourcing. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wondering who on earth would be searching for this term? Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2021 (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.