Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland

WP:DSPOLAND

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Poland. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Poland|~~~~}} 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 Poland. 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board

Scan for Poland related AfDs

Poland

Magdalena Leska

AfDs for this article:

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Komosa

AfDs for this article:

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [1] or [2] and Mexico for good measure [3]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [4] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Borys

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

This reads like a short and to-the-point business resume. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article aims to highlight the individual's significant contributions. However, it's crucial to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any promotional language should be removed to maintain a neutral and objective tone. I would appreciate your assistance with this. Benmotia (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Trębacki

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Polakowska

AfDs for this article:

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No other sources have been found to change my analysis from the previous discussion. Article still fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD AND PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Kowalska

AfDs for this article:

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some limited coverage here, here, and here, which I think is evidence of further offline coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Levintsov

AfDs for this article:

(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 national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Poland, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica

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

As

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Poland. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Chopin Piano Competition. Doesn't need a seperate article, IMO.— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place! WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I do note that the other events have their own articles but they are full of information after the fact. Draftify is another option — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place is not what WP:NOTCRYSTAL implies. The competition is just as likely to take place as the next Olympics or the next World Cup, all of which are events which fulfil WP:NOTCRYSTAL criteria: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and preparations are in progress. intforce (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is certainly notable. Previous competitions have been won by very notable performers. The fact that is going to take place all else being equal and is in preparation is not in doubt. My worry is that this is just a place holder for the event to come which is notable only for being the 100th anniversary. I still vote merge and create the article when the Competition is over — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – looks like 3/4 reliable independent sources exist discussing it. Sources will only ramp up in the future. Seems useful to have a solid starting ground for a quick-moving event like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 8 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!} 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland

Poland

Magdalena Leska

Krzysztof Komosa

DemoCrisis

Paweł Borys

Marcin Trębacki

Dominika Polakowska

Aneta Kowalska

Alexandr Levintsov

Sack of Wiślica

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Images

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also