Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce


 * 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 merge to List of cemeteries in Poland. Those requesting the article be retained have failed to present enough reliable sources, covering the subject significantly, for notability to be established per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (multiple sources, not just one, are required). Therefore, the article's subject is unable to be found notable enough for a stand-alone article at this time. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. Proposed for deletion because "No evidence of any notability for this small, relatively short-lived and long-removed cemetery." Prod removed because "actually, the significance of this entry is that it begins the [Category:World War I cemeteries|Poland] → meanwhile, in Polish wiki there are hundreds of WWI cemeteries listed", which makes me seriously worried. Being one of hundreds is not an indication of notability, quite the contrary actually. That these articles exist on Polish Wikipedia is no indication of notability either, every language version has their own rules and what may be accepted there is not necessarily fit for enwiki. What is needed is actual evidence of WP:N-meeting coverage, not short mentions but serious, indepth sources about this specific cemetery. Fram (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I see this to be a canary in a coal mine. I was not aware until today that we have Lists of cemeteries in Wikipedia which include virtually every easily recognizable country except for Poland. I don't know why? Perhaps because this is a new thing within Wikipedia:WikiProject Death or something, but I need to know whether Cemetery is or is not notable by design around here. Is there a place to confirm that? Thanks in advance,  Poeticbent  talk 01:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also: Template in Polish Wikipedia with a full list of military cemeteries in Galicia covered.
 * Lists of cemeteries list all notable cemeteries per country, not all cemeteries per country, as many cemeteries are not notable (but every country has a few or a lot of notable ones). No idea why we didn't have such a list for Poland, but to go from no list to separate articles on all cemeteries is quite a huge leap. Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Major war cemeteries around the world attract considerable coverage, but its unlikely that this single grave ever did. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- An article on a single-grave cemetery does not seem worth having. However, it would be better to merge it than to plain delete.  I am not sure where it should be merged to.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of cemeteries in Poland. It doesn't exist, but that's easy (WP:SOFIXIT), which I'll do in a second. We could use Wikiepdia:Notability (cemeteries), and Notability (buildings) as well Wikiepdia:Notability (monuments) are failed/red links. Which takes us back to GNG (or Notability_(geographic_features)) and I don't see how this one passes - unless we consider it a monument or zabytek of sorts; which I think are notable by the virtue of classification (and per "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." from the policy cited above). Not that I can find any mentions of this being a monument. Pl wiki does seem to consider all such small cemeteries notable, see pl:Szablon:Zachodniogalicyjskie cmentarze wojenne z I wojny światowej, through I will see about it, as I've started an AfD there as well for this article. If there is preference for merger, I'd stress that any merger should make room for the entire content of the article WP:NOTPAPER). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Interesting place of local history, there are reliable sources and in some way it is unique cementary as there is only one grave. As I see discusion (AfD) on Polish Wikipedia, they will probably keep this article (but in Polish Wikipedia an administrators sometimes ignore discusion and delate/keep articles despite other arguments). List of Cementaries would be too big. Kmicic (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are reliable sources.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: reliable sources? looks like a wiki, and furthermore gives me no results when searching for "398" or "Bieńczyce" or "Bienczyce" on it. The second source,  has no indication of why it would be notable (no idea who created it and what their credentials are), and in any case has one sentence about the cemetery: "It was a single tomb of an Austrian soldier, located at ul. Makuszyńskiego and closed in the fifties during the widening of the street." (Google translate). The third and final source is a map, not information about the cemetery. The "references", more of a further reading, contain again one of the three sites above, and then one book by an amateur-historian. So in total, we have at most one reliable(?) source of unknown detail about this cemetery, not multiple reliable sources as needed by WP:NOTABILITY and as claimed in the keeps above. Fram (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a reliable source, see book Galicyjskie cmentarze wojenne by Roman Frodyma. Kmicic (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a reply to my comment, I discussed the book, you haven't addressed any point of my comment though. Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to relevant list. This is a very small article, there seems to be just a para or so to say. So why not say it in the list?
 * A counter-argument might be on the basis of "Unusually small cemeteries, still recognised as such". Yet if they built a road through it, no-one was caring that much about it. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Viam Ferream, it was not "a road" being built. It was a main thoroughfare through the neighbourhood. The singular grave would have to be moved elsewhere in any other place on earth. I presume, the grave was moved to an existing cemetery in Krakow. However, it would be nice to know, which one.  Poeticbent  talk 15:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is notable. I certainly think that it's interesting. I said merge, but I'd be happy with keep and I'd be against delete.
 * My only concern is which form is easier to read for our readers? I see a very small article like this handled better within a list, not outside that list. Viam Ferream (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would something with one source of dubious reliability (and unknown length about this cemetery) be notable according to WP:NOTABILITY? Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the sources are sufficient to remove any doubt as to its existence, and I would see the goal for showing notability on a cemetery being one of confirmation (do we have the name / dates / location right?), not of arguing the case for military cemeteries in general. There are official lists of such things: if it makes it onto the list, it is a cemetery. This is different to rappers and one's favourtie comic book, where "notability" is far more subjective and so needs a consensus of individual sources to show it. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree that "being a confirmed cemetery" is enough to be considered notable, but you probably already guessed as much ;-) Merging seems acceptable in this case (the list didn't even exist at the time of the deletion nomination), keeping as a stand-alone article is to me, based on the available source(s), incorrect, but I don't think we will convince each other about this! Fram (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, with no prejudice to a later merge. Sourcing reliably comes from Roman Frodyma, where this author is a recognized expert in the topic of Polish war cemeteries.  Hopefully, the editor who created this article will be encouraged to contribute more such articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:07, 30 January 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.