Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland,  and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
 * Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.
 * For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —KaliforniykaHi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 June 2024 (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.