Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugartsthal

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. I'll file a copyvio-revdel request if one is necessary. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugartsthal

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

At least partly copyvio of http://infogenealogy.blogspot.ie/ The Banner talk 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just by going from English language sources, this most certainly was a real village.[1] Even if there is a "partial" copyvio, AfD is not the answer. Just remove the the copyvio content. It can be reduced to a stub if need be. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strangely, the user who contributed the material that is both on the blog and in the article, User:Andreypl, has a very similar name to the author of the blog, Andrzej Polska. To me, the problem isn't likely copyright violation - although I don't know what copyright blogspot might claim if the material was posted there first. It might be that primary sources are not optimal for this sort of information. In any case, this looks like a real place and generally would be considered suitable for inclusion based on WP:NGEO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added a possible copy vio tag to the relevent section. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ps. although it looks like it was first on WP (just in a different format) as the article was created here, and subsequent additional information added before the information appeared on the blog according to the dates of the post there. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:GEOLAND - the village clearly existed per the article and cursory BEFORE. On procedural grounds this is a wrong nomination - a copyvio should've gone to a speedy deletion request, not AfD, if on the entire article. I do not see the copyvio at the moment - but if it was on part of the article, that part should've been redacted (and revdelled).Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is about notability, not quality. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this discussion is another example of local projects undermining the policies. The Banner talk 16:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion is a policy, too. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting copyvio by inaction is not mentioned as a valid alternative. The Banner talk 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (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.