Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German and Jewish settlement in Poland (966–1385)


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

German and Jewish settlement in Poland (966–1385)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

POV fork of History of Poland during the Piast dynasty from which it was removed for being unsourced (and undue). There might be some useful text there but it can be merged to Ostsiedlung and History of Jews in Poland (though actually I think the relevant text is already in those article). Also not sure why German and Jewish settlement needs to be considered together here. For German settlement we already have the Ostsiedlung article. I can see a point in an article on Jewish settlement in Poland (and I'm a bit surprised that such an article has not been created already) but this ain't it - in fact, out of 9850 characters only about 1100 (or 11%) is about Jewish settlement, apparently thrown in there as an afterthought. Note also the article is pretty much unsourced, except for just that one short paragraph on Jewish settlement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can the nominator explain us, why's it a POV fork, rather than just a content fork, that could/would be legitimate? I couldn't find an explanation in the diffs you provided above, concerning the deletion of those paragraphs from the original article. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it's totally unsourced (aside from the short paragraph on Jewish settlement) and I can spot quite a number of dubious claims in that text. But if you want it to be just a content fork (of text in Ostiedlung and HoJiP, synthesized together), that'll work too. I should add that it's also a synthesis of two distinct phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete At first sight it seemed to be a reasonable content fork, however after further expanation by Volunteer Marek I agree this is a sythesis of two distinct phenomenon which is already covered in Ostsiedlung and History of Jews in Poland. --Martin (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a peculiar joining of two distinct subjects in one article. The two phenomena are dealt with in other articles and the material here is mostly unsourced. Would it make sense to have several other "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" articles covering other periods, or may be one "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" article for all of Polish history? Orczar (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into History of Poland during the Piast dynasty if anything mergable. The article, as its stand with a single reference, is not worthy of a separate encyclopedic article. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Incubate the article in search of further sources, and give it a direction of expansion ("German and Jewish settlement in Poland", for example). Reliance on a single source isn't a reason for deletion. And the synthesis issue doesn't hold water for me: we're talking about historical patterns of settlement that became highly relevant in Poland later (and became highly relevant across multiple places because of the rise of the ethnicized nation-state).--Carwil (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with that is that "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" would still be SYNTH. Why not "German, Jewish, Flemish, Armenian and Czech settlement in Poland" article? Wouldn't it make much more sense to split it up? Also, it's not really "reliance on a single source" - it's more like no sources at all except for one short paragraph which "relies on a single source".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article doesn't make an attempt to demonstrate what connects both aspects of this topic. The section on Jewish settlement, as mentioned above, already fits within the scope of an existing article. The section on German settlement remains completely unsourced, so I can't find any justification for keeping this in its current state. Kansan (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The topics are better covered by each having its own article, rather than the two together within a seemingly arbitrary time.Borock (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - it appears to be original work on a number of topics with few references. Split-merge it into a number or existing articles so long as sourcing is found for statements. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

*Keep and rewrite to include additional sources. Major related topics, about which there is enormous literature. That there are more specific topics also does not invalidate this one.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an enormous literature on each topic separately . I am not aware of any sources which treat the two phenomenon together - I'm guessing at best you can find one or two which mention it in passing, probably ones which are just about the general ethnic composition and demographics of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As I said above, one of these topics (German settlement) already has extensive coverage on Wikipedia. The other (Jewish settlement) if anything, deserves an article of its own. Not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Revising my opinion: there would be so much to do that it isn't worth rewriting from the present article as a start. And I agree that one of the Jewish settlement has a considerably  higher priority   DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Would like to see the it referenced and merged, per comments above, but as it stands now, it seems to be rather problematic, per the nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:05, 4 May 2011 (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.