Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-district V of Mokotów (of Armia Krajowa)


 * 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sub-district V of Mokotów (of Armia Krajowa)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created in 2009, as an apparent stub of the Polish version of Wikipedia. Has been in violating of WP:CIRC since it's creation, and fails GNG. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's nothing significant there (I think it's from the Polish WP, rather than Russian, though).-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (procedural, mass nomination needed). First, it has a reference so it is not a CIRC violation. Second, this should have been a mass nom - why choise sub-district V when we have all seven, from Sub-district I of Śródmieście (of Armia Krajowa) to Sub-district VII of Warsaw suburbs (of Armia Krajowa)? Third, notability. It is a hard case. There is extensive literature of Warsaw Uprising, through most of it is in Polish. One could think that it would be sufficient to merge them to District of Warsaw (of Armia Krajowa). but looking at some of the 7 sub-districts articles shows that they already are beyond stub, and that they are discussing history of fighting in each of these regions. Granted, those articles are often poorly referenced, but they are not OR, just failure of WP:V. As such, I see no reason to delete this (plus, as I noted, it is weird to nominate one of the series of 7 articles without discussion of the larger context). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The only source supporting this article is another Wikipedia article, which is the definition of circular sourcing. The only source on the article to which this article is linked makes no references to the subject of this article. Not only that, but I failed to find anything of a reliable source supporting anything in this article. I only focused on this one article out of the even because it has been very poorly sourced since it's creation in 2009, as I stated above. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - requires some more depth and research but nothing there is untrue and is easily proved. i.e.    etc. etc.  Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  00:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. You'd delete a unit of the Polish resistance? Seriously? There is clearly some major notability. Is this the thin end of the wedge to eventual deletion of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany and World War II? Is this historical revisionism? Where are we going here? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Where are we going" is into that dangerous territory where you criticize the motives of other editors. If you have that kind of complaint, take it to WP:ANI.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a rhetorical device, not a statement about motives. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I do not accept the CIRC criticism. The real problem is that there is no reference at all, but that is typical of stubs.  Looking at the linked article, which has slightly more content, fighting in this area was particularly unsuccessful.  What does the Polish WP say on the subject?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:21, 17 March 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.