Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom of 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. The consensus below is that any problems can be addressed through merger or renaming, so normal editing takes over from here. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom of Poland[edit]

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

This stub is pure rubbish. There never was a state known under this name. The article has no references and not much content either. It's also almost an orphan. The coat of arms in the infobox is just somebody's ahistorical doodle, nothing more. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —— Kpalion^(talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I see this term used in English literature, although indeed context vary. Second, the term is used in Polish literature. Third, how about you try to AfD this article on the Polish wiki first and see where it goes? Overall, this seems to me to be a substub, but notable, and not a hoax. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can find several Google Books hits for the string "united Kingdom of Poland". We can also find some for "great Kingdom of Poland", "small Kingdom of Poland", "old Kingdom of Poland", "new Kingdom of Poland", etc. So clearly, these terms are "used in literature" as you say and, I suppose, we should have a placeholder stub for each one of them in case somebody somday decided to write an article about them? Anyway, if consensus is to keep, I will request moving it to History of Poland (1320–1385) or Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385) (currently a redirect to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)). The current title, content and infobox all suggest there was at some point a political entity whose official name was "United Kingdom of Poland" which is obviously not the case. Oh, and I don't think you really consider the Polish Wikipedia a reliable source, do you? — Kpalion^(talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a merge to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385), but I do not believe you have proven that the entity is not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A political entity called "United Kingdom of Poland" is not non-notable; it never existed! I'm fine with redirecting to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) (I don't think there's enough valuable content in United Kingdom of Poland to talk about merging; well, maybe the map). — Kpalion^(talk) 22:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment there does appear to have been a significant period of time in polish history but I am not sure that the title is correct as it may be too literal a translation the Polish wikipedia is the only one sourced and the article is clearly titled http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1320-1386).Tetron76 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385)". -- œ ^™ 19:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unresearched nomination that is just a waste of time for other editors. Keep per Piotrus and OlEnglish, but rename. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a waste of time. If such unresearched stubs about made-up states had not been created we would have to go through the trouble of discussing their deletions. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (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.