Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achinger coat of arms

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. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achinger coat of arms (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)

A massive walled garden of more than 200 articles on Polish coats of arms, most of them abandoned years ago in a state similar to this one. Very few have a bit more information, but these are the exceptions. Yes, noble families had coats of arms, but having pages detailing each and every one of them is serious overkill (and having pages, like here, that don't detail them but just list them is totally useless). They are all listed in some catalogues of coats of arms, but very few (or even none) of them are actually individually notable. Fram (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General note: The below collapsible "List of pages included in this AfD" added by Fram as of 07:38, 10 July 2013‎ (+6,575) were added after the discussion with actual votes from several different users already started:

But I had indicated clearly what I intended to do and where I had gotten from the very start of this AfD. Please give the full picture when adding unsigned "general notes". Fram (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - useful and important articles --Sobiepan (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While these articles contain verifiable info (and references are available, e.g., in Polish wikipedia,), they left unreferenced and basically abandoned, so formally Fram is right. I suggest the community must pledge to rescue these articles and postpone this vote for, say, 1 month. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2; I'm also tempted to slap the nominator with a trout for blanket nom. E.g. Białynia coat of arms has a solid text, a reference (and more a readily found) and is used for noble families with wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Białynia coat of arms could easily be merged to Jastrzębiec coat of arms though (and the horrible List of Surnames That May Use The Jastrzębiec Coat Of Arms is included in this AfD). Fram (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are two different coat of arms, even if they are looking similar. Its like to merge the coat of arms of Germany and Austria... Or the Flag of Monaco with that of Indonesia--Sobiepan (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Białynia one is a slightly modified branch of the Jastrzębiec one, it directly is derived from that one, as described in the article. That they look the same is because the first is based on the second, with one additional feature. There is no historical link at all between the Monaco and Indonesia flags. Please keep a basic level of intellectual honesty in this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• close this deletion discussion I reviewed briefly several other pages. Most of them are in good state, i.e., not "in a state similar to this one". "Massive", "walled garden", "abandoned" are not valid reasons for deletion. Moreover, the fact that "They are all listed in some catalogues of coats of arms" means that all of them have multiple sources of verifiable information, hence satisfy the general criterion of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All stamps are included in multiple catalogues, with images, dates of issue, number of copies printed, theme, value, ...; does this mean that every single stamp or stamp series ever created can have an article here? There is a reason that the GNG is only a guideline, not a policy; being included in e.g. a book of 4500 coats of arms is not necessarily sufficient to get an article here (though of course it is better than not being included), and AfD's can decide for previously undiscussed topics that they don't get articles, even if they meet the literal reading of the GNG. Fram (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question indeed. But, no worries, WP:NOTVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The entries on this list from Category:Coats of arms of cities in Poland should be considered separately from the noble families as the former have potential merge targets at the city articles. As a for instance, Coat of arms of Kłodzko includes a reference (if not inline citations) and has information that is not at Kłodzko. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination does not properly list the articles to be deleted per WP:BUNDLE. Considering some 250 articles (per nominator's reckoning) under the title of one article does not give proper notice to anyone scanning the AfD page. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has a Bibliography and two External sources. Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed... Poeticbent talk 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• These were added after the nomination, so the bed side was OK in the morning :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article was created by User:Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin along with 76 similar articles (see: X!'s tools) Szwedowski made his last edit on 31 May 2013 If I'm not mistaken, his wife (R.I.P.) passed away in 2012. Shouldn't we be asking what his plans are? Poeticbent talk 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just being an abandoned article or not touched for years is not a valid reason to delete. Yes it needs improvement but so do many articles. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but while we're at it, perhaps we should think about renaming and refocusing or rescoping these articles en masse. They should be ideally about Polish noble clans (rody szlacheckie) which happened to be identified by this or another coat of arms, and not about the arms themselves. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noble families are a separate entity, also notable, but not the same as coas. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not agree with Fram. These articles need improvements and more informations, but just the fact that some of them are abandoned or not touched for years is not a valid reason to delete. Interfides (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge? has anyone considered that? Making a list out of it (with separate articles for clearly notable CoAs) might be the best option. Renata (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea. Fewer long articles are always better than lots of very short ones. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renata, it seems you failed to notice my remark: all there COAs clearly satisfy WP:GNG, since there are plenty of Polish heraldry books, hence deletion is out of question; merge is routine cleanup. I posted a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, calling for a rescue mission. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If good merge targets can be proposed, I have no objection against a merge or merges. Fram (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many keeps, but apart from the poor state of most of these articles, can anybody explain what makes these notable subjects? Take e.g. Bajbuza coat of arms, created in 2004 already, tagged as unreferenced since 2009 until yesterday; what's the point of it? Amadej coat of arms, Brama coat of arms, ...; exactly the same story. Articles consisting purely of infoboxes with a list of names. The vast, vast majority of these articles are basically empty shells with an image. Articles about noble families, those I can understand, and that these have a section on the coat of arms, no problem; but articles on hundreds (and potentially thousands) of coats of arms? Why? Fram (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I'm not including all coats of arms here, the one that seem to have a claim to notability, like the Janina coat of arms, are not up for deletion. But these are the exceptions. 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whats wrong with these articles? (nominated by Fram for deletion...)

Bogorya coat of arms

Łodzia coat of arms

Lew II coat of arms

Piława coat of arms

Lewart coat of arms

Krzywda coat of arms

Ciołek coat of arms

Gryf coat of arms

Półkozic coat of arms

Nałęcz coat-of-arms

Korczak coat of arms

Bes coat of arms

Larysza coat of arms

Coat of arms of Poznań

Coat of arms of Głogów

Check also that nomination...:

http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Coat_of_arms_of_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=563531782

--Sobiepan (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That error which I immediately reverted? Yes, it would have been stupid to include that one here, since it is clearly a notable topic. Sadly, on AWB, "skip" and "save" are located right above each other, so a misclick is easily done. The fact that I immediately overturned that nomination indicates that some thought is put into this and the nominations are not indiscriminate. I don't suppose that was your point though... Fram (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for your examples, let's take one: Lew II coat of arms; it includes gems like "Alfred Znamierowski (Polish: Alfred Znamierowski)", but that's something that needs cleanup. The rest of the article is very hard to understand. If this is one of the best examples, then I am only reinforced in my decision to nominate these for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another of your examples, Krzywda coat of arms; the first source gives a 404 error, the "rootsweb" source is a web discussion, not a reliable source at all, and the bottom link to a Russian website doesn't look to be a reliable source either (and the link to this article isn't really clear, the source says nothing about the coat of arms at all). So it seems that there is plenty wrong with that article... Fram (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sobiepan, let's reverse the question; why should Mniszech Coat of Arms, which you recently created, be kept? Why did you create it as a separate article from Mniszech family, which you also created (and which seems to be a notable subject)? Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Mniszech example, OK, coat of arms which were used just by one family could be merged.

But the rest can be expanded. Please check some examples on Polish wiki:

• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top%C3%B3r_%28herb_szlachecki%29
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%B3%C5%82kozic
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastrz%C4%99biec_%28herb_szlachecki%29
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C5%82%C4%99cz_%28herb_szlachecki%29
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sas_%28herb_szlachecki%29
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieniawa_%28herb_szlachecki%29

--Sobiepan (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that perhaps some of them can be expanded. Others seem to be in a similar state on the Polish Wikipedia as well, e.g. pl:Herburt (herb szlachecki) or pl:Hodyc or pl:Hołownia or pl:Hornowski or pl:Iwanowski or pl:Jasieńczyk (herb szlachecki) or... It seems as if these coat of arms articles have been created indiscriminately, without any distinction between notable ones and non notable ones, without any thought about which can truly support a separate article and which would be better as a section in articles about notable families instead, or simply deleted. The majority of these articles ha serious problems, not only here but on the Polish wiki as well, it seems. Fram (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am on holidays and thus can't reply in length; but I believe all coas are notable. PO. But yes, please merge the monstrosity that is List of Surnames That May Use The Jastrzębiec Coat Of Arms to Jastrzębiec coat of arms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems that Fram has a basic misunderstanding: AfD is not a place for a cleanup (I forgot the policy link). Clearly, there is lots of cleanup here: adding refs, merging, etc. But to nominate Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth for deletion is big overzealous overkill, even if caused by frustration by unreferencedness. A normal way was to start a general discussion somewhere, as I explained Fram in their talk page, which they chose to ignore. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no, I'm perfectly aware of what AfD is intended for. Most of these simply need deletion. Some of them can be merged or redirected, but in most cases, no merge target exists. To get them deleted, I started a general discussion, here, which is the place for such discussions. As for Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and policy reasons, WP:NOTGALLERY would be a good start. Fram (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that you do aware of what AfD is and not, and that you are entitled to your opinion that they "need deletion", your opinion is rebutted by Wikipedia rule I mentioned: WP:GNG, in particular, existence of multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in essence. May be my argument is faulty, but it is based on your own words, and I didn't notice your argument against it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep it's possible that some of these coats of arms are not notable (and that even if they're non-notable there's no notable potential article to merge them to), but a blanket nom of 200 articles is not the way to go about this. Let each be considered on its own merits. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While some noble families are notable, their coats of arms rarely are. It would make more sense to include the coats of arms in the articles about the families and mention their arms there. The "Achinger coat of arms" says nothing about the coat of arms - all the information is about the person who was granted the arms. When and why was he presented them? What do the symbols mean? Is there anything exceptional about them? TFD (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THEM ALL! - Dear Wikipedians, I met Wikipedia in 2005 or 2006 (long time ago). I did and contributed in many articles (so many that I don’t remember most of them anymore). They were mainly about Polish coats of arms. A few of them were (more or less) “acceptable” articles… mostly they were just “stub” articles (I did the “stub” hoping somebody else would improve them). I’m not a fine genealogist or heraldist. What can I say? I did my best.
Nowadays I see that many of this “stubs” remains like that. That’s sad!
Many Wikipedians are Polish born or Polish descendants… It’s not my fault if few people took my “stubs” and make “fine articles”, according Wikipedia standards. Yet, let’s remark that “English Wikipedia” is not only the Wikipedia for British, Yankees or Australians… it is also the “international” Wikipedia. For “international”, I mean that is the “worldwide” Wikipedia (that’s a paramount position!)
Anyway, let’s remember that Polish coats of arms are National cultural icons. The oldest of them exist before the Christening (and born) of the Kingdom of Poland itself.
Polish coats of arms don’t belong only to the offsprings of the szlachta families, at all. They belong to the Polish culture… therefore, to the Polish Nation and the Polish People as a whole.
I’m conscious that :User:Fram has the best intention keeping English Wikipedia articles in higher standards. Yet, I must be honest and express my own feeling. I do feel that it happens: Katyn massacre I in 1940, Katyn massacre II in 2010, known as: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and now is going on a “Katyn massacre III” in Wikipedia… That’s my feeling… and I feel sad and angry. Please, excuse me. I don’t have the intention to blame :User:Fram, at all! This is just the feeling of an old Wikipedian.
Certainly, most of this articles need improvement, but deletion… in any way!

--Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (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.