Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  00:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland,  and Russia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep but ugh. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible from the sourcing perspective (medieval sources plus some passing mentions in modern newspaper and minor websites). That said, the article is likely essentially correct - as in, it is not a hoax, RS do confirm there was a Ruthenian raid on Poland that year that burned the town of Wiślica. Here's a good reference . Here's another: . It is rather unforunate that the creator was blocked rather than given a probatory sentence and tasked with verifying their low quality sources with better ones. Overall, while the current sourcing, well, sucks, the topic is likely notable. Sigh - we have dozens of articles from that editor to review, with similar quality of sourcing (ex. Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: @TimothyBlue - how's your Polish / Russian? Are you seriously expecting to find any significant sourcing about this kind of historical event in English? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, complete OR based on the lecture of medieval chronicles. While the raid on Wiślica most likey was a historical event, the circumstances are unclear and only described by Kadłubek. I doubt if the topic is WP:NOTABLE, it seems that mention in related articles (Piotr Włostowic, Bolesław III Wrymouth etc.) should be enough. If not removed the article should be rewritten and moved to Wincenty Kadłubek tale about raid on Wiślica; because it's a tale, not historical record. Marcelus (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marcelus Did you look at https://ingremium.pl/index.php/IG/article/view/292 ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, my opinion is based on this article. Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marcelus Well, IMHO that article demonstrates the topic is notable. Destruction (sack) of Wiślica is not challenged by historians AFAIK. We might consider whether the article should not be rewritten into one about that event (battle), but to delete it I think is going to far. It is not a WP:HOAX and if there is WP:OR IMHO it does not raise to the point we need to WP:TNT this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Destruction of Wiślica probably happened, but it doesn't mean the event is notable enough to deserve a separate article, unless it will be about narratives about the event. Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.