Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Cześniki
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Battle of Cześniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages because identical issues and topic:
- Battle of Wólka Węglowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Battle of Kałuszyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Raid on Fraustadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czesniki and Wilka Weglowa had any sources for years, while Kałuszyn and Fraustadt only cite a single Polish source of no known author credibility. I couldn't find anything about any of these articles in English and in any second and third-party sources. Droyselich (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I just added the Reflist, pictures from Commons, and citations to Battle of Cześniki, Battle of Wólka Węglowa, and Battle of Kałuszyn. Too bad, nobody took care of these entries before now, but these battles were notable. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep since they have now been improved. WP:V requires that articles should be verifiable, not that they should be verified, though that is obviously better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and I nearly closed, these are convincing enough for notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 18 May 2016 (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.