This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Poland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Poland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Poland. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland/archive

• See also: Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board

Scan for Poland related AfDs Scan for Poland related Prods Scan for Poland related TfDs

Lower rusocician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a single search result for "Lower Rusocician", "Dolno Rusocicki" or "Delnjo Ruzōciki" on Google or Google Scholar. At best a non-notable local dialect, at worst a complete hoax. Contested draftification. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Poland. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No content found on any search engine. No source and failing WP:GNG. Deletion is the only option. Sackiii (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i don't think think thats necesary but i mean like you can delete it but its spoken there are no sources because its not recognized by the people and others. Yihanbai98 (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  or maybe the person who made it meant an non-notable local dialect Yihanbai98 (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, just curious, how did you find this AfD on your very first edit? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ohh my friend told me to go here Zdyhan (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  oke please delete this already i don't need it on wikipedia Zdyhan (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In a case where this is not deleted (i.e. merged, kept, redirected). Someone kindly do a WP:HISTMERGE with Draft:Lower rusocician as an editor just cut and paste the article. Also, No opinion Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a WP:HOAX. I am concerned that the new editor who created this is mostly edit warring adding weird niche "local" names to article, and now this. On his talk page they say they are doing this for fun b/c they don't know what else to do on Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE is a concern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most likely should have been speedied. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All signs point to something madeup. In any case, if this language is, as the article claims, "not recognized" then clearly the subject does not pass the WP:GNG test. Pichpich (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Gets Married (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced article. Not clear this film passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Added a few things. Meets WP:NFO at least for 3 reasons: screened more than 5 years after release/part of a retrospective on the history of cinema/ selected for preservation in a national archive. And this is without mentioning the numerous existing references in reliable sources that even a cursory GBooks search can confirm..... -Mushy Yank. 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable film. Make sure you do a WP:BEFORE check 4meter4, Wiki isn't an expand upon demand service.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources used to verify/expand the article are in Polish which understandably didn't come up in an English language BEFORE search. Searching in languages I don't read or speak is simply beyond my skillset. That's the benefit of having an AFD and having other participants contribute with different skills and perspectives.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sourcing found. Now to be fair towards the nominator, I can kind of see where they were likely coming from. If you aren't familiar with searching in a language you don't speak, then finding sourcing can actually be a little bit difficult. A lot of the books were in snippet only view and if you aren't looking at URLs for the .gov, .org, or similar for government and museum type sourcing, all of the foreign language hits can seen kind of overwhelming or even non-usable. Searching in English didn't bring up anything and to be honest, I don't think this ever actually received an official English release. This title may be an unofficial, literal translation, as the hits I did see were either Wikipedia mirrors or seem like they used it as a source.

So I wouldn't give the nominator too hard of a time on this. 4meter4, my main note here would be when in doubt, find someone who speaks the language and ask them to search, particularly with older films like this one. Those can be particularly tricky to find sourcing for, especially as sometimes Google can be finnicky with foreign language results, particularly if you're searching in the US. I've had occasions where I've searched the exact same as other users, but had better results and vice-versa. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 @ReaderofthePack "someone who speaks the language and ask them to search". Like me. Or ask at WT:POLAND first, then ping me if nobody replies. Pl wiki entry on this sucks, so yeah, it looked non-notable, but a lot of works like this have sources out there. But AfDing is ok too; creator is still active and one would hope they'd have acted to fix this (and dozens of similar articles they created years ago - almost all of them are likely notable, but they are just short catalogue entries and plot summaries, as written...). Anyway, major kudos to @Mushy Yank for finding sources. Keep, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets GNG Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the Warsaw Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Old WP:CFORK of Warsaw Uprising. It makes little sence to have a "military history of a battle"-type of any article anyway. This just rehashes the content from Warsaw Uprising, and has very few references. This is a failed experiment from the early years of Wikipedia, when we were figuring out how to write and split content (I was involved in this topic and article, years ago). At best, this can be redirected to the main article to prevent some pointless red links from appearing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect. This is a failed experiment from the early years of Wikipedia. Exactly. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a WP:ATD. Clearly a WP:BADFORK of Warsaw Uprising. BilletsMauves^€500 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. No value in keeping this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no reason for this article to be kept. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Miłosz-Piekarska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, Poland, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Addition; many of the refs are from what can be considered reliable outlets. The intial version would fall under WP: INHERITED due to her close ties with notable people but I neutralised to this current version.-ANU^writes 15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I second what ANU^writes said, it follows both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The citations seem to be reliable, albeit they are all in Polish. However, language is not something to delete an article for. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete the sources in the article are formatted as interviews and provide very little independent coverage. No reviews of her work are cited in the article and I couldn't find any in a quick google search, but I have very limited ability to read Polish. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  there is a lot more about her work on google, one I found this:

  https://ksiaznicapodlaska.pl/site/epea/E11/Mi%C5%82osz-Piekarska.pdf

  There are also reviews of her poetry in polish monthly literary journals, but they do not seem to appear on google SenWariata (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weal delete. The sources are poor; at best we have a few short interviews with her, nothing substantial. Her work did not win any awards and the little attention she is getting is all framed through the fact that she is a relative of a Noble Prize winner. She also has no pl wiki interwiki (and pl wiki is pretty inclusionist). I feel this falls on the WP:TOOSOON side of the borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. references are from respected and reliable sources. The fact that she is a close relative of a Noble Proze winner, which creates an additional interest in her writing does not take away the fact that she is recognized and highly regarded for her own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenWariata (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC) — SenWariata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  "The fact that she is a close relative of a Noble Proze winner" is WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTINHERITED, the provided sources being mainly interviews are not enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, There are interviews about her work, as well as meetings with the audience. It's unavoidable that being a niece of Nobel Prize winner she gets asks a lot of questions about her uncle and family in general. Her writing touches on the subjects of diaspora and living away from her home country, so often her readers ask about members of her family, who also were dispersed to different parts of the world due to wars and political upheavals. There are reviews of her work in literary magazines, but unfortunately these are not accessible on goggle. Found one: https://ksiaznicapodlaska.pl/site/epea/E11/Mi%C5%82osz-Piekarska.pdf SenWariata (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar Actually, interviews can establish notability for WP:BIO, all depending on what the sources are, how many, the style and how reliable those sources are. Can you roughly see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability? We got the whole article there on how, which and when to use interviews to establish notability. i.e A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. ANU^writes 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The interviews , as well as recorded meetings with her readers are about her work ( even if they do include mentions of Czeslaw Milosz, her uncle and other members of her family ) and are all from respected and reliable outlets. Her books are published in Poland by main stream, respected publishers. SenWariata (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see any notability or famous works by this person. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.The article passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She is an author of four books published by highly respected publishers in Poland, and her poetry is also printed in well established literary magazines in Poland. Such as in Twórczosc. https://tworczosc.com.pl/wydanie/926/ Also, as User:Anuwrites correctly commented on the 19 February 2025 in regards to numerous interviews with Milosz-Piekarska :A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. SenWariata (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't get to !vote twice. You've indicated your keep !vote previously. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Roger that, thank you. I am simply concerned that, as the references are all in Polish they may be somewhat dismissed or overlooked by the voters. There is a lot more about her in Poland, that can confirm her "notability" in addition to what is currently listed in the references: such as a discussion about her book recorded in 2022 by the TVP ( polish TV channel) https://vod.tvp.pl/video/informacje-kulturalne,13072022,60913442 ( starts at 3.43min ). or another review of one of her books https://dorzeczy.pl/kultura/325270/maslon-zapomniana-melodia.html?_gl=1*1uidapo*_ga*MTE4Njg1NjI5MC4xNzQwNjIwMTU4*_ga_WYDND0VST0*MTc0MDYyMDE1OC4xLjEuMTc0MDYyMDU3Ni42MC4wLjA. . or another review in https://ksiaznicapodlaska.pl/pl/epea/rozmowa-kamila-pilichiewicza-z-joanna-milosz-piekarska.html I am not very well versed in navigating the Wikipedia's methods of acceptance of biographies so please accept my apologies if I am fumbling here. SenWariata (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't vote, we !vote. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see here

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Poland related pages including deletion discussions