Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houses in Poland

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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Houses in Poland

Houses in Poland (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)

This article is not Encyclopedic, has no reliable sources and is incomplete. This has been the status for years. OpenFuture (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

*Delete The article is uncyclopediac. It is incomplete, and basically copied from a website. EMachine03 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, but move to a more suitable title, say Residential architecture in Poland. There may be some issues with the article (site owner's permission is claimed, but that should be confirmed through OTRS and may not directly imply a free license; on the other hand, no proof of copyvio has been provided either), but it's a valid encyclopedic topic and the article looks like a promising start. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. I wrote the above before I could find the original text at [1]. I can now see that it's an almost word for word and no actual proof of site owner's permission has been produced. So, per Mukkakukaku, I'm changing my position to delete now and undelete once a free license is secured. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep, but move to Residential architecture in Poland. Sorry for changing my mind back and forth, but I didn't notice the OTRS note on the talk page. I've now added an OTRS template on the article page itself, so it's more evident that permission has been granted. With the copyvio issue resolved, there is no further reason to delete. The article could use much improvement and (at the very least) a title change, but it's notable enough to keep. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep per Kpalion - Although the entire site looks to have been copied - Words have been changed so it's not exactly word-to-word with the website, Nonetheless it is an encyclopedic topic, Again I agree with Kpalion in that Also the article should be renamed to Residential architecture in Poland or something similar and this should be sent to OTRS (Sent).
  

–Davey2010 • (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC) / 12:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep An article being of poor quality means it should be improved, not deleted. Topic is surely worth an article, although I agree it should be renamed. TheLongTone (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio is copyvio. Until the OTRS permissions go through, this article should be deleted. It can be un-deleted after permissions are secured, but as it stands right now none of it is not plagiarized. The topic itself probably meets the threshholds of notability, though a better title would not be amiss as indicated by other users above. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep -- With the addition of the {{ArticleOTRS}} template about 3 hours ago, it's safe to say it's not copy vio. It is WP:SELFPUBLISH, however, and needs a lot of work to get into an encyclopedic state. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep @User:EMachine03, User:Kpalion, User:Davey2010, User:Mukkakukaku. Am I missing something? There's an OTRS permission on the talk page... Yes, it is a bit promotional, so tag it with {{promotional}} and/or {{tone}} and move on. The topic is notable, and I'd support Kpalion's renaming idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The {{ArticleOTRS}} template wasn't added to the main page until about 3 hours ago. This is more than just promotional, it's blatant WP:SELFPUBLISH -- the creating contributor is the individual who owns the copied-from website. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this would be a reason to improve references, not to delete. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep You're right. It just needs more work. EMachine03 (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2014 (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.