Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gieniutkowo


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Gieniutkowo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsure of the notability of this so bringing here for consensus. The topic is a pig sanctuary that looks like a typical local non profit. It has received some press coverage, some of which at least looks local. Overall I’m not sure this has the kind of coverage in RIS we’re looking for, but I don’t speak Polish so others may be better able to judge. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or merge. The coverage is gossipy-tabloidish-local. If we had an article about the local village, pl:Nowe Węgorzynko, it could be merged there. Pl wiki village entry does not mention this animal shelter. Cross wiki merge and translate is not likely, sigh. If there was a fandom pigpedia we could transwiki it there but alas... Anyway, policy-wise, I don't think this meets GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC) PS. I stubbed Nowe Węgorzynko, now we have a merge target. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Keep . Meets WP:GNG, i.e. multiple sources that are reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage: Polityka, a national newspaper of record (I came across the subject there). Dzień Dobry TVN, an admittedly gossipy morning news broadcast on national TV. Głos Szczeciński, a local newspaper. You can take one out if you want, and we still meet GNG. The nomination suggests that the coverage is not reliable because it is local. That is not what GNG/WP:RS says. (Maybe you thought the same rules apply as at the French Wikipedia? Wikipédia:CGNMO). are you saying the sources are not reliable because they are "gossipy-tabloidish"? There is consensus at WP:RSP that there are gossipy reliable sources (Vogue magazine) and serious unreliable sources (Russia Today). There is consensus that Polityka is reliable and you yourself agree; maybe you missed that ref? There has been no reliability discussion on TVN or Głos Szczeciński, but they would pass.  ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  21:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Polityka is reliable, but the article is mostly about animal rights, and this NGO serves more of a dressing for the author's essay, it is just briefly describe and referenced. It's more like a clickbait style article, drawing readers in with the "read about the cute pig farm" stuff then quickly becoming an essay about animal rights, Polish/EU law and author's grievances... borderline SIGCOV and RS, yes, but overall there is very little we can say about this place. I'd still prefer a merge and redirect to the local village. Which I'll stub, why not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Too little to say' is actually a relevant argument because GNG requires "significant" amounts. The article currently has eight sentences without any faff. That's enough. If consensus disagrees, Merge as you propose. The rest seems rather besides the point. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  23:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge, does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage very much seems to be routine heart-warming articles. And as a note, Trimton above seems to have a conflict of interest when they say "and we still meet GNG". Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha no! No relation. I meant "what we have here is GNG" ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  23:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Develop a list of what options we have for optimizing the article that we have here. Are there any other such animal sanctuaries in (or around) Poland? If not, and this is the first or only Polish animal sanctuary, perhaps, given the RELATIVE poverty in Poland compared with other European nations (historically, at least), that uniqueness could suggest notability, in that lack of means could have silenced other would-have-been sanctuary developers in Poland. These may ben first first, or these may be yet more humanitarians who are struggling against previous humanitarians' efforts' failures.  We don't know.  Would doing that discovery be worthwhile? Do these humanitarians have any identifiable ideologies other than veganism? MaynardClark (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @MaynardClark An article I found that mentions it in passing stated, IIRC, it's a second (specializing in pigs, I think, certainly not the first animal shelter/sanctuary in Poland). So I don't think they qualify for the "first in fooland" defence... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' is not about righting WP:GREATWRONGS. is correct; an older azil for świń exists named Chrumkowo (cheeky redlink).  ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  00:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no substantial claim to WP:GNG being made here by comments or at the article itself. That it's merely mentioned in sources is not GNG.
 * The article can basically just be summarized as a very small hobby farm/sanctuary. The have a pig in a wheelchair and are registered as a type of foundation in Poland (looks similar to a non-profit registration here in the US that most anyone can do). That's it. This is all extremely passing mention with content you'd really only see in stories that wouldn't satisfy WP:NOTNEWS policy. I also don't see any target for a merge/redirect, and I don't see any content that would really fit a merge either. If some potential other home does exist, better to write that in independently rather than through a merge. KoA (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "anyone can do" [what Gieniutkowo does] sounds like you just don't like the fact that this kind of subject gets significant coverage. All three major news refs spend several paragraphs on the subject. If you don't read Polish, press Ctrl+F (Cmd+F) and search for "Gien"(iutkowo). The name is mentioned 7 times in Polityka alone. Or use Google Translate, or DeepL or so. What part of NOTNEWS do you mean exactly, if you could clarify please? Thanks, ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  00:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, casting WP:ASPERSIONS or blatantly misrepresenting comments is never appropriate at AfD or anywhere on Wikipedia, take that battelground attitude somewhere else. The reality is that what you mention has already been addressed by myself and others already. KoA (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) TT me 02:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * hm so the order in which news stations cover things is no part of GNG or WP:DELREASONs. So I take it that you mean the coverage is too brief for a standalone article. What about WP:PLENTY? even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a stub waiting for expansion. Being "short" is not grounds for deletion ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is policy, especially for fluff pieces, and continuing to twist the meaning of comments by others in not appropriate at an AfD. It does seem like we're reaching the point of WP:BLUDGEON here with comments like this. KoA (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Ref bombed for a 10-ish line article, leaning non-notable. I can't read the sources or comment on their notability/reliability as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Google translate, etc. help, but pretty much everything is passing mention. There's nothing really to justify keeping the article based on sources looked at so far. The few keep !votes are just vaguely saying there are sources, but like you allude to, none are of and depth that we'd be looking for to satisfy GNG or WP:NORG. I pruned the article a little bit to help with the AfD, but the ref-bombing really does come across as trying to pad the article. KoA (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2022 (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.