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.
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|
reply here05:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.
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|
reply here05:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.