Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of Terror

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Terror[edit]

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

Notability. If there was an article on the Witold Pilecki Center for Totalitarian Studies I'd argfue for a merge. But there ain't. As it stands this article risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this seems pretty significant, not OR and based in RS. I don't see that POV is much of an issue. I don't find English language sources, but there are Polish language ones that seem RS in the article. The database is based on depositions of Polish citizens who testified before the Main Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which was taken over by the Institute of National Remembrance, so if a merge destination was desperately sought, that could be a possibility. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable. None of the sources appear to be independent, including Polish government websites mentioning the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From state run Radio Poland: the institute was created by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage and "According to Poland's deputy minister of culture and national heritage, Magdalena Gawin, the idea is to overcome an information barrier and demonstrate to the Western European public the extent of genocide in occupied Poland on the basis of documents and eyewitness testimonies." New institution to document crimes of genocide against Poland. A state-created entity could be notable but I am having difficulty locating independent coverage. Note: this reference refers to the project as "accounts of terror" which may be useful as an alternate search term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainstream press coverage for example in [1]; more niche portal coverage at [2], and those are just from pl wiki article, I didn't search further, but that's already more than quite a few other archives (also, plus the English language source that the anon above cites). Clearly passes GNG. Also archives are usually separately notable from institutions that run them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important verifiable historical resource regardless coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs to be re-organised and tagged appropriately but not AfD'd. In my opinion this has sufficent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
kEEP -- This is a Polish subject and the missing article appears to exist in the Polish WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm going to side with Piotrus who I know to be a fair judge of notability of Poland-related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2017 (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.