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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citation. The page creator is autopatrolled. Without citation, they created such articles. What are the norms of the autopatrolled if these kinds of articles are published without any ref? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Poland. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The key question is not whether there are sources in the article, but whether sources exist. Based on the pl.wiki article, there are plenty of sources available (even if I can't evaluate them in detail because I don't speak/read polish). -Ljleppan (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it should be in Poland Wiki. It's duplicate entry here. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since sources exist and show notability. Hundreds of thousands of subjects have articles in multiple different Wikipedias, which does not make them duplicates. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why Ref is empty? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That is most decidedly not how WP works. We hope that every article is on every language Wikipedia. In any case, if you had done a cursory WP:BEFORE you would have seen that it is described on page 171 of John Clarke's Gallantry Medals & Decorations of the World published by Pen & Sword, and page 35 of Henry Taprell Dorling's Ribbons and Medals: The World's Military and Civil Awards published by Doubleday. It is without a doubt described in other books on international honours and awards. It is also mentioned in numerous biographical "who's who"-type books as having been awarded to notable people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peacemaker67 where are/is any source of your claim? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Google Books is your friend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peacemaker67 that can't be notability. An article without any Ref is deemed fit for DELETE. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "An article without any ref is deemed fit for delete?" That is a fundamental misunderstanding of our guidelines which specifically state a check must be done before it is nominated to see if references exist. This is because an absence of sources within an article means it can be tagged with an appropriate template, or better yet, the editor can add them in themselves. We only delete articles if there are no sources found after thorough discussion. Editor have raised these sources above, and simply replying with "that cant be notability" is not a particularly constructive argument. Clearly the source exists and if you search within the book, @Peacemaker67 is entirely correct. Therefore notability is established and I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order. - MaxnaCarter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Such-change47, you are correct. I'll withdraw. Someone has to work to add citations. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - bordering on, but not quite, speedy keep given the erroneous nomination. Sources have been located by other editors, and a proper WP:BEFORE check does not appear to have been carried out. Sources demonstrate subject notability and verifiability - MaxnaCarter (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment About the creator having autopatrolled rights and the lack of references: the aricle was created in 2006 – the autopatrolled user right didn't exist until 2009, and the editor who created the article got autopatrolled rights in 2011. It's true that articles should not be unreferenced, but that's not a reason to delete an article when it has been shown that sources exist. The solution is to add references to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bonadea yes, the solution is to add references. I have no intention to get any article deleted, if suitable. I just did as it says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" for an Unref article.

  I know, this nomination will not delete, but will help the article. With good faith, Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. First, you do realize this article was created in 2006, when it was a norm to create ORish unreferenced essays? Anyway, it has an entry in this reference work about Polish decorations, although admittedly the snippet view only shows me one paragraph and I can't estimate the extent of SIGCOV. Another work that seems to have at least a few sentences with a description of physical attributes is this. And this. And this. Overall, I think this award has received sufficient attention from reliable sources to meet GNG. Nominator would be advised to ask at WT:POLAND about it first before listing it here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I may easily create references to Polish law acts constituting the cross, which are official source, but in several days. By the way, I consider this nomination as an abuse, since it is obvious, that given decoration exists - I haven't made up the photograph in a photoshop. Pibwl ←« 16:58, 3 June 2022 (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.