Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exports of Poland


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of exports of Poland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OR based on 2012 data; lacks notability and encyclopedic relevance. Part of an apparent walled garden around The Observatory of Economic Complexity created by Special:Contributions/Willy_turner. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as statistics cruft. Renata (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. List of exports of a country seems to me pretty much like standard stuff to find in an encyclopedia. This does not seem to be OR, it is sourced, through the linked page is (somewhat?) dynamic and is already showing data for 2015. Exports and imports by country is a totally encyclopedic and notable topic, and while this need better sourcing, historical trends, etc., it is nowhere near deletion. Also, on procedural grounds, why is Poland singled out from the Category:Lists of exports by country? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - If there's encyclopedic information here, it should be included in Economy of Poland. However, I doubt that a list like this is of much use. Are we going to update the figures quarterly? It's best for Economy of Poland to talk about exports in more generality, rather than trying to keep up with the precise figures as they change. I'd be in favor of the deletion of these sorts of export-list articles in general, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:LISTN. If someone wants to argue otherwise, we should discuss Category:Lists of exports by country and the alleged The Observatory of Economic Complexity walled garden as a whole, not pick off articles one at a time. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment -- There was no intent to single out Poland; I PROD'ed two similar articles on the same day, as can be seen on my PROD log. The concern was about the nature of the article, either as an in-house project, or a promotional walled garden, around The Observatory of Economic Complexity and single sourced to it.
 * In any case, this is not a functional list, in Wiki sense, as the constituent entries are not Textile exports of Poland, but links to generic articles. I agree that this is "statistics cruft" and should be deleted. I believe that this nomination should be treated on its merits, so that it can be used as a test case going forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like your complaint is not about notability of the subject but about the state of this article and eventually the similar articles in Category:Lists of exports by country. Is List of exports of Poland a notable topic for the encyclopedia? Probably yes. Is this article in good shape, Probably no. Can this article be improved? Probably yes. Treated on its merits, that's a Keep for me. When the other articles are taken into consideration, the calculation may be different. ~Kvng (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to just embed a discussion of Poland's most important exports into the Economy of Poland article? That's much more informative than a bare list of export. Exports of Poland might be suitable for an article, if someone could write something informative up, and one could even include a list within the article, but List of exports of Poland doesn't seem useful at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly that article should summarize the issue, but the point is that the topic of 'exports by Foo' is notable, and even if the list is incomplete and obsolete this does not constitutes reasons sufficient for deletion. It is just a list-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed Exports of Foo could be a notable topic; wikipedia has a number of such articles, such as Foreign trade of Argentina. But List of exports of Foo is not such a topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep Subject is notable. Article needs workDlohcierekim (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete statistics cruft. This is routine information that also happens to be outdated. No indication of notability from independent sources and therefore fails GNG. Also, this list is put together by editors's discretion, not WP:RS, and fails content policy WP:NOR. We are not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:IINFO. This list seems to be an inversion of acceptability per WP:LISTN - the list is comprised of separate notable Wikipedia topics, but the topic of the list itself has no claim notability and seems to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. This list would not be much use in another article such as Economy of Poland. In fact this is probably already covered in that article in some way or other. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (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.