Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archiwum Polskiego Rocka


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 14:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiwum Polskiego Rocka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two years ago User:BiH tagged this with prod, but with no justiifcation, I declined it because I think that a, a proper prod justification is needed, and b, that this may be expanded with sources. Two years on, no sources have been added, and I cannot find any to show that it passes Notability (websites), so I am bringing this here for a wider discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I see at least one article (seems to be review/announcement of the printed version) in the "Gazeta Wyborcza" (behind pay-wall): Pavlor (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately nobody was able, even on pl wiki, to confirm that this article is a proper article and not a paragraph-long blurb. While the article has been rewritten on pl wiki, as I noted there I am not convinced the sources presented which mention the portal in passing are sufficient for notability, at least for English Wikipedia. Ex. one of the sources is an interview with the subject, where the interviewer does not discuss the portal, it is only mentioned in passing by the subject (interviewee). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a website it's probably not notable, but it meets notability as a book, which gets press coverage and seems to have new editions published every year. —Мандичка YO 😜 15:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then someone should write an article about that book, but its publisher does not inherit any notability that the book may have. (And you have not provided sources that would even back up your argument...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I meant to comment soon, and first of all, the person who removed the PROD was a massive and blatant advertiser, so that explains enough, and in this case, I confide in the nominator's analysis as this is his field, and if there's simply not the needed substance, regardless of the claims, then there's not enough. SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Classic example of WP:ADVERTISEMENT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (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.