This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toPoland. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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:
Edit this page 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 theedit 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.
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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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 toEurope.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Keep, per the SIGCOV in themuseum just like for the other Polish rower you nominated. It includes details such as that she was known as "a piece of Polish rowing history" and "for many years a solid driving force for many important teams." She was a17-time national championship medalist and received the title Master of Sport. Just like Elwira Lorenz, she has many books (some of the same ones) that devoted pages of coverage to her. She's clearly notable just like Lorenz:@Svartner:BeanieFan11 (talk)19:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to quote @JoelleJay on the Elwira Lorenz discussion:the museum is run by the governing sports body (Academic Sports Association, AZS), so is explicitly not independent. Same thing here. 17-time national championship and the museum is certainly grounds for draftification, but not for sole usage of the museum as a reliable source.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)13:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find such sources? If sufficient sources that could be cited are locatable, then they should be able to be added.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)20:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note "wioślarka" is Polish for "rower", for those searching. Jankowska was one of 12 athletes presented with honours from thePolish Olympic Committee in 2015 for her contributions promoting sport in Poland.[1][2] Coverage very likely with more than this (literal first page of Google results) search.Kingsif (talk)23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Double world university champion (1986), and Polish champion (1987) before her Olympics appearance (mini-bio). There also appears to be a whole report coverage of her on page 30 ofthis 1998 newspaper (pdf opens in browser), which I've not been able to type out and translate completely yet, but mentions that besides being a PE teacher she organised the only sports school in a certain region of Poland and personally recruited kids (I think I found the website for the school which said she joined in 1994?).Kingsif (talk)23:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Passing mention as earlyas 1984 in local news, might be a good newspaper archive to sift through.[reply]
Concerned about the independence of the first source so I would say try to find another more independent one (especially if it looks like it's endorsed by the , but the second one does seem promising. A google translate of that article displays this:
On the sidelines of this year's rowing recruitment. Elżbieta Jankowska, M.A., put a lot of heart and work into organizing the sports class at the only Sports Championship School in our city and region. She visited many primary schools in the voivodeship and in Płock, where rowing is the oldest sport and the cradle of sports in general in the city on the Vistula River. It is a discipline that has produced 10 Olympians (out of 12 in the history of Płock sports), including 5 Olympic medalists. The only woman practicing sports in our city who has had the honor of representing our city and Poland in the Olympic Games is Elżbieta Jankowska. Unfortunately, she was not allowed to meet with the youth at Primary School No. 17. World Junior Championship medalists Jerzy Bednarski, Krzysztof Michalski, and many other Polish rowing representatives once studied at this school. It would be unwise to not let an Olympian and rowing coach into the school.
Interesting. It's a strong start, but my primary concern isn't necessarily the amount of coverage but rather the amount of tabloid nature that the paper seems to write in praise of Jankowska. More of an opinion piece. It's significant coverage, but not SIGCOV, if you know what I mean. Regardless of my scrutiny on the sources, this is a very strong start regardless, though.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)12:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources that can be possibly used:
Commemorative medals of the 100th anniversary of the Polish Association of Rowing Societies were awarded by Bogusław Kołodziejak , secretary of the historical commission of the Polish Rowing Association, to OlympiansElżbieta Jankowska and Piotr Buchalski.PZTW - 2023
Zespół Szkół Technicznych inPłock is the school, which she joined 1994
In 1994, Elżbieta Jankowska and Jacek Karolak (a graduate of the first year of SMS) joined the coaching staff...zstplock.pl
That's interesting but I can't access the book -Płockie Towarzystwo Wioślarskie. 130 lat tradycji, oprac. Aleksander Zalewski, Płock 2012, s. 5-13 (book as soruce stated in polish wiki[3]) or the PDF[4], if you google it (first result ) :
In 1978, the club returned to its traditional name, Płock Rowing Association, while retaining the "Budowlani" suffix to honor its construction sponsors. ... In 1985, this class was transformed into the Sports Championship School, which operates to this day. Until the 1980s, PTW Płock achieved success almost exclusively in the men's category. The first women's gold medal at the Polish Senior Championships was won in the four-man event in 1987, and a year laterElżbieta Jankowska became the first Olympian in PTW history.Miria~01 (talk)21:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't even be merged because this is explicitly a sub-list ofList of German names for places in Poland, which has sub-lists for all the other provinces except for one which was literally PROD'd 9 hours ago. At best, the full list could be arranged to be separated based on province, but there should not be separate sub-lists for the different provinces.Weirdguyz (talk)08:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check any Polish newspaper archives? TheMałgorzata Rosiak AFD already confirms that there is coverage not available on the internet for top Polish sportspeople. Meanwhile, here, the Polish Wikipedia article describes her as holding the national championship in the "coxless pair, double sculls, coxless quadruple sculls, coxed quadruple sculls and double quadruple sculls"every year from 1979 to 1990. That is an insane number of national championships and indicates it is virtually certain coverage exists. We just need to look...BeanieFan11 (talk)15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Małgorzata Rosiak AFD already confirms that there is coverage not available on the internet for top Polish sportspeople" - No, what it "confirms" is that sportspeople in highly niche sports (as snowboarding was in the 90's) aren't necessarily notable.FOARP (talk)15:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"has SIGCOV" is not what she said. She said multiple newspapers wrote in-depth stories focusing on her. That's a pretty strong indication that she ... had in-depth stories written about her (i.e. SIGCOV).BeanieFan11 (talk)16:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.@InvadingInvader,Svartner, andFOARP: It'd be nice if people actually looked. Thismuseum gave an in-depth biography of her with its very own bibliography section – that includes a page of coverage to her inGłuszek, Leksykon 1999, five pages inKobendza, 80 lat PZTW, a page inMiniatury czyli filigranowe portrety wielkich dam polskiego sportu ("Portraits of the Grand Ladies of Polish Sport"), a page inPawlak, Olimpijczycy, and two pages inAWF Warszawa w Igrzyskach Olimpijskich 1952-2000. That's a clear indication of SIGCOV.BeanieFan11 (talk)15:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV per WP:N needs more than one source, though, which demonstrate as to why a subject is notable. Can you find more?InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)15:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment?a page of coverage to her inGłuszek, Leksykon 1999, five pages inKobendza, 80 lat PZTW, a page inMiniatury czyli filigranowe portrety wielkich dam polskiego sportu ("Portraits of the Grand Ladies of Polish Sport"), a page inPawlak, Olimpijczycy, and two pages inAWF Warszawa w Igrzyskach Olimpijskich 1952-2000BeanieFan11 (talk)15:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to doubt the existence of the sources the museum listed as discussing her? My access to Polish newspapers is very limited.BeanieFan11 (talk)20:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally unsure about the museum quite frankly, with regard to its independence and amount of significant coverage. And based on the number of athletes the museum provides, part of me also wants to say that it's borderline passing mention.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)21:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
300 words is not a "passing mention". And aside from that: do you have any reason to believe that the book sources the museum says cover herdo not cover her?BeanieFan11 (talk)21:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Academic Sports Association writing mini-biographies ofits own athletes is definitely not an independent source. The amount of content in the cited sources, and their independence, is unclear.JoelleJay (talk)05:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The coverage from BeanieFan11 appears to be sufficient for the GNG here, although if definitive evidence can be shown that the museum is not reliable or independent in regards to the cited material, please ping me.Let'srun (talk)16:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - open to draftification. The independence of the sources provided is a concern, but the article may be able to be incubated.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)17:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose draftification. Unlike Rosiak, where I'm actively in the process of collecting SIGCOV, I am not in that position here. Knowing SIGCOV exists is sufficient perWP:NEXIST.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, as I see extant concerns regarding the independence of sources identified here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FailsWP:NSPORTS. The only sources provided here are sports-reference.com andturozmawiamy ("We are talking here"), a site operated by the government of Silesia which published an interview with Rosiak, which is to say it is not a reliable or independent source (see thearchived version here). Nothing further found in myWP:BEFORE search other than coverage of her snowboard-making company in which she is mentioned in passing. The PL Wiki articles contains no sourcing that would address this.FOARP (talk)13:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Polish wiki, she was junior vice-world champion and a20-time national championship medalist (mostly gold). I have zero doubt a newspaper search would bring up SIGCOV. If only we looked...BeanieFan11 (talk)15:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I have zero doubt a newspaper search would bring up SIGCOV. If only we looked" - Beannie, Poland is on the internet, it has many internet outlets.It had internet news sites in 1998. If a Google search turns up nothing, then there's probably nothing online.
It may have had a few sites in 1998, but much of what was published then was (i) not put online and (ii) has since become deadlinks. Someone showed a stat that was something like a third of webpages from 15 years ago are now dead. Now make that 30 years here. Not everything is accessible through a Google search.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So a great time to find these sources tends to be before writing an article about the subject. In contrast simply insisting that the sources must exist is not a strategy that has been regularly working out for anyone lately.FOARP (talk)20:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know it was acceptable to write articles like this at the time it was published. Do you really think that a runner-up at the junior world championships and 16-time senior national champion wouldnot have been covered at all in Poland? I looked into all four of the Americans who competed in her event in 1998 (several of whom did worse than her) – all of them have abundant SIGCOVin archives (many of those archived stories arenot available through Google). Why would Rosiak be different?BeanieFan11 (talk)20:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you really think that a runner-up at the junior world championships and 16-time senior national champion" - insnowboarding, in1998? The chances seem pretty good actually.FOARP (talk)20:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come the top Americans in the event all have extensive coverage in archives? And how do the recent Polish Olympians in that sport have SIGCOV as well?BeanieFan11 (talk)20:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because America is America and Poland is Poland. They won't necessarily cover every topic the same, particularly when we're talking about a sport like snowboarding, which was way more niche and unestablished back then. There were still slopes that were closed to snowboarders in 1998. Joelle Jay has posted a nice review below that covers the local paper coverage well, and there's no SIGCOV in any of it.FOARP (talk)20:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except Poland covers it in-depth today, and Olympic snowboarding received a good deal of coverage back in 1998 similar to the extent it receives today...BeanieFan11 (talk)20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now we need access toall possible Polish newspapers, a dozen or so spanning her career in her home voivodeship isn't enough...JoelleJay (talk)01:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's 1998 have to do with anything? I would expect there to be better newspaper coverage for someone from 1998 than 2025 (where sports journalism is dead, and evenSports Illustrated has been disputed as not being reliable anymore...)~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk)20:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snowboarding is still a new sport, back in 1998 it was niche, considered a bit hooliganish, a lot of slopes were closed to boarders back in the 90's. It definitely matters that we're talking about the 90's.FOARP (talk)20:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the one who mentioned the dead link percentage to you."Link Rot: 38% Of Webpages From 2013 Have Vanished" I worry that searching for SIGCOV in the future will be a problem in this online-only era. The Wayback Machine doesn't archive everything and you still have to know what specific URL you're looking for. It would be nice if there was a Google search for archived websites.~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk)21:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You posted at 12:48, not 13:21. Just how long do you think it takes to go through the first ten pages of GHits, GBooks, and GNews perWP:BEFORE D1 when none of them say much at all about the subject and/or are obvious mirrors of this site? Do you really think people need to spend longer than ~20 minutes when there are no sources?FOARP (talk)20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Request arelist if I don't get to it within the next few days. I'm confident I'll be able to rescue this with an extra week.BeanieFan11 (talk)21:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joelle's numerous Diffs plus the fact that Poland had internet news by this time show that if Google couldn't find something, then it's likely not deserving to be here. Would not, however, be opposed to Beanie userfying this as a User Draft though if the belief is genuine.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)15:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted some people and received confirmation that there is SIGCOV, I'm requesting the relist since I'm trying to get the exact text of the articles, which could take a little over a week.BeanieFan11 (talk)15:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet theWP:GNG due to a lack ofWP:SIGCOV. Considering that there are a grand total of two sentences (and of the sources I can view, only databases cited currently in this article, there isn't exactly much to preserve here. The article can always be recreated if BeanieFan or another interested editor can find significant coverage.Let'srun (talk)18:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus to delete (or keep for that matter), one editor asking for a relist simply drags out volunteer resources much more than is necessary. Of course, if there isn't a consensus yet in the discussion, of course a relist is appropriate. We need to have evidence ofWP;SIGCOV, not be told "trust me bro".Let'srun (talk)18:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drags out resources? If an article can be saved with a one-week relist, then that is appropriate rather than deleting the article. Others haveconfirmed for me that SIGCOV exists: why shouldn't I be given one week to get the exact text?BeanieFan11 (talk)18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to contact the subject herself. She said she had plenty of SIGCOV and would send me pictures of them in about a week.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sold to wait this long in the mainspace. IIRC, the original Lugstubs RFC proposed mass-draftifying articles is a move in the right direction since it addresses both your concerns about these atheletes being potentially notable, and also cleaning up the mainspace of Lugstub-like articles, my main concern. I would honestly support moving most of these additional stub articles to draftspace and enabling a six-month draft countdown; it would allow the mainspace to be cleaned up (at least for me, that's my main concern, but I would guess that ), while potentially notable and significant athletes can have better articles incubated. Alternatively, compiling these into a list article could work as well to the extent that WWIN's point on us not being a database. The six month clock would also give you the opportunity to wait without being subject to a standard AFD's discussion roughly seven-day clock. Per the original Lugstub conditions, you would also be able to userfy drafts and move them to the mainspace, and move them to mainspace instantly as soon as you find significant coverage from non-Olympedia and non-SportsReference articles. May I suggest that to address these concerns, that we work on Lugstubs 3 as a mass-draftification proposal?InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)14:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InvadingInvader, I already told you that it has been extremely difficult for me to look into the current noms. I.e. 100 in a week. You're proposing (I assume) 80,000 in six months, or 1,538 in a week, 219 articles I need to look at a day. I am not a machine. That is absolutely unreasonable and would result in the vast, vast, vast majority of notable subjects being deleted. Do you remember LUGSTUBS1? Ever thought to check back on how successful it was? A low estimate is that a fourth are notable and worthy of returning – so, how many have been returned? Less than 3% and we're two years in. Do you thinkdemanding me to research 80,000 subjects in six months is going to result in many, or even a fraction, of the notable ones being saved? Hell no.BeanieFan11 (talk)15:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your estimate is that 1/4 are notable, that is clearly not the consensus and if so few have been successfully returned to mainspace then that's even more evidence against their belonging as standalones.JoelleJay (talk)16:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "consensus" are you talking about? The reason so few have been returned is because no one has any motivation to improve them, not because they're not notable. I've personally foundmany notable ones that I haven't got around to improving.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at multiple RfCs and LUGSTUBS that notability cannot be predicted from the given achievements and that the likelihood of any nontrivial proportion of those article subjects being notable was far too low to keep them in mainspace without meeting NSPORT.JoelleJay (talk)04:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is so much easier to nominate an article for deletion than to prove notability. The mass nomination of sports figure stubs serves to get them deleted without proper discussion, as it overwhelms the process. It takes 2 minutes to make the nominations, but it can take hours to find suitable coverage to prove notability, especially when it is in a language not known by most English Wikipedia editors. Articles are being deleted not because the subjects aren't notable, but because there isn't enough time and editors to keep up with them all, when a small handful of editors can nominate so many for deletion in such a short period of time.Ike Lek (talk)20:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so important to you that horrendous stubs are kept? What is so bad about removing them and writing them on a later date when actual sources have been found?Geschichte (talk)21:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the most out of anyone in this thread looking through Polish newspapers for coverage, so I don't know why you're bringing "ease of nomination" up. And anyway it was far, far easier for Lugnuts to create these stubs than it is to delete them. We have global consensus that this articlemust actively cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG, so where is thatrequired sourcing?JoelleJay (talk)04:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Which we do not have for this subject. GNG has to be demonstrated with actual sources to be met, even if they're not actively cited in the article.JoelleJay (talk)18:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires multiple IRS SIGCOV sources to be met. Stating the subject "meets GNG" is a more specific claim than vaguewaving at NEXIST (an approach that, by the way, has been universally rejected in dozens of recent sportsperson AfDs and let to a semiformal topic ban from invoking it for one editor) andmust be supported by actual sources to be valid.JoelleJay (talk)19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full length article about her father Dariusz Rosiak, the founded company NOBILE (Polish manufacturer of highly-regarded and worldwide critically acclaimed skis, snowboards and kiteboards), and his daughter's accomplishmentsnewsweek.pl - March, 2015
BookNauka jazdy na snowboardzie w weekend written by Malgorzata and Darusz Rosiak:empik.pl
Article about the company:... The CEO of Nobile is Małgorzata Rosiak-Brawańska (Dariusz's daughter), a multiple Polish snowboarding championship medalist, Junior World Vice-Champion, and Olympian. For her, sports equipment is more than just a recreational tool – she knows it and what should be expected of it....skimagazyn.pl
None of which contribute whatsoever to the notability of this subject... I don't even see her mentioned in the Newsweek article?JoelleJay (talk)18:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a subscription is required for the complete article, otherwise you only see a section. However, she is mentioned, (e.g.A na dodatek jego córka – snowboardzistka Małgorzata Rosiak – była członkiem polskiej kadry olimpijskiej. Trochę za dużo tego dobrego), even if she isn't the main topic. Whether this is enough for notability is another question.Miria~01 (talk)12:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toPoland at the 1998 Winter Olympics#Snowboarding. Fails GNG due to a lak of SIGCOV. The references above areWP:ROUTINE passing mentions and/or database entries. No objection to Beanie (or anyone else) creating a copy of this into userspace to allow for time to locate better sources (if they exist) and improve it to the point where an article is acceptable. I agree that a 20-time national champion "should" have more sources, but nothing has been located as of yet.FrankAnchor11:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't received the sourcing by July 16, thendraftify, although it arguably should just be kept given that she confirmed to me she received plenty of in-depth coverage for her career (WP:NEXIST).BeanieFan11 (talk)13:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't need to understand the concept of SIGCOV. I specifically worded my question to figure out if there's SIGCOV. She told me that many newspapers published in-depth articles focusing specifically on her. That is SIGCOV.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she understands that this coverage can't be from what she or others close to her say in interviews and should not be local pieces on her junior career?JoelleJay (talk)19:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't sound like the coverage was all interview-based. And there is no requirement that the sources be non-local / non-junior career-related.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, if nothing shows up in the next 24 hours this has just been an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. Perhaps future demands that AFD'ing of Olympian articles should be rate-limited should be analysed in light of who is causing un-necessary workload in AFDs for their fellow editors, and instead we should focus on how that process might be better streamlined?
I mean just to be clear on what was promised here:"I'm confident I'll be able to rescue this with an extra week","Others haveconfirmed for me that SIGCOV exists","I've contacted some people and received confirmation that there is SIGCOV","she confirmed to me she received plenty of in-depth coverage for her career". How exactly are we to characterise the contributions of people who makes such statements, in light of the subsequent lack of any sources being produced?
It isalways possible just to recreate articles once the IRS SIGCOV sourcing shows up. These AFDs shouldnever be treated as some kind of final verdict. If you personally feel that you can't keep up with everything on WP, well, join the club because WP is a group effort, and not something that needs to be fitted round the availability or bandwidth of any specific editor.FOARP (talk)13:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why something was described as""confirmed", and closure of the discussion delayed on that basis, only for the promised material never to appear.FOARP (talk)21:57, 15 July 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage inreliablesecondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursoryGoogle Scholar search brought up a fewself-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.
Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week.Castroonthemoon (talk)21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thesources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they havebrought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would beWP:UNDUE.Kovcszaln6 (talk)08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built.Castroonthemoon (talk)05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is notindependent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.
In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe thatWP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into theMarxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below.Castroonthemoon (talk)07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with theMarxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR doesCastroonthemoon (talk)17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: