Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (2nd nomination)

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 Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 05:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the Civilization of Death

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This book was nominated for deletion over a year ago with the argument: "The book fails WP:Notability (books). No reviews, no awards. This article's purpose seems to be a veiled attack at BLP subject Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Most of the article focus is not even about a book but about a controversial interview/lecture by said subject". While the result of the past discussion was "keep", I note most keep votes, came from users now blocked as socks, two of which came from an editor who was indefinitely blocked for (among other transgressions) BLP violations against the book's author. This needs to be revisited due to socking in the past discussions, but besides, I fully agree with User:Piotrus who originally suggested this should be deleted - the book is simply not notable in light of the policies he cited back then. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I said in my original nom still holds true (the article hasn't change since). This (pretty crappy) book fails WP:NBOOK and GNG. It had no reviews, and the little controversy it generated was about a presentation (author talk), which had the same title. The controversy lasted justs few media days and was forgotten quickly, so it also fails WP:NEVENT. A summary of this incident can and is already present in the biography of the author, there is no need for a spin-off article, which as noted, is little but an attack page created by a now-idenf banned editor (and his socks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. KidAd • SPEAK 07:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - The book itself does not appear to have been notable itself, as the coverage is largely about the controversial talk he gave while promoting it, rather than the actual book. This controversy is already covered on the main page of the author, and so this should merely redirect to that page. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. If someone feels strongly that there is sourced content that could be merged and this would improve the target article, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 10:53, 12 March 2021 (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.