Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dąb Katowice

Dąb Katowice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unreferenced sports organization article. Not clear this passes WP:ORG, WP:NSPORT, or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Poland. 4meter4 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: was a prewar top-league club. Is also mentioned in the article GKS Katowice (regarding ATD). Geschichte (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone translate this, and take any sources from that? Giant Snowman 21:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done so, but the Polish entry isn't great either to be honest. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no way possible that this club was not covered extensively in the Polish press of the day or in books afterwards. There is very little in Poland from the pre-internet era accessible as far as I know, but they were prominent enough that the magazine Panorama noted some years after the club's demise that "Older ice hockey fans often recall KS 'Dąb' Katowice", and gave some further content on them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pl wiki article has a book ref. I'll ping an expert on Katowice topics from Polish Wikipedia, who may be able to provide an overview of sources and their thoughts on notability of this topic: User:MacQtosh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sports expert, and at this point I can't say anything about the significance of this sports club. However, I do have access to the book mentioned above, as well as various other sources about sports in Katowice. I won't be expanding the article about the club on the English Wikipedia, but I could improve the article on the Polish Wikipedia, but probably not until the middle of next year at the earliest. MacQtosh (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the football GKS Katowice article could do with some work on both Wikipedias to be honest, never mind the other sports or other smaller or historic clubs. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The club is quite clearly notable and sources may be harder to find but not impossible. The article needs improvement and sourcing, however it meets the notability threshold easily; the ice hockey section were Polish Champions in 1939 and the football team played in the top flight. The swimming section alone had 11x different championship titles and 17x records to its name. Deletion is not the way to go in this instance. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are lot of non-policy based votes in this discussion. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. We need specific references named with WP:SIGCOV. WP:ORGCRIT is clear on this.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish editors would spend as much time improving others work rather than trying to undo it. It wasn't that difficult to find WP:RS, I believe this should have been at least attempted before nominating an AfD Abcmaxx (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was attempted. Not everyone is at gifted at finding Polish language materials. This article was unsourced for 19 years and tagged for sourcing problems since December 2009. Plenty of time was given to add materials before bringing this to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your first thought was "I'll look for some sources to improve the article" was it? One of the sources is in English and it took me a few seconds to find. The Polish Wikipedia had a credible source too, you don't need to speak Polish with all the tools at our disposal these days. This was an incredibly lazy AfD nomination with "somebody else will do it" mindset prevalent. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the laziness was on the side of the editors who wrote the content in the first place without naming sources not on people who did BEFOREs but were unsuccessful. Not everyone locates materials as successfully as others (search hits vary depending on where someone lives as algorithms differ from country to country, what search engine is used, etc. Even google books isn't the same everywhere as it too is different based on where you are). This is why we have these conversations and allow people with other research gifts/tools have a chance to comment. Further, not adding materials verifying content while article building shifts the burden of verification onto others in a way that isn't right. It's not just lazy, it's systemically a huge problem and a massive time suck for the editing community.4meter4 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't attempt to improve the article nor attempt to reach out to any editors who could help, you went straight to AfD. Many of the editors who commented on this AfD specifically focus on football articles, you could have approached any one of them, or WikiProject Poland, or WikiProject Football or any combination of those, that's what talk pages are for. In fact you're spending more time trying to justify this ill-advised AfD than you did on the article itself. Penalising an editor who created an article on good faith X years ago and is likely no longer active serves no purpose, bludgeoning your point via AfD is poor form. All you did was shift the burden onto someone else with the additional pressure of time as once an article is deleted, it can be very hard to bring it back. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I took advantage of the tools in place to handle these type of issues. At some point we need to force conversations on long standing articles with zero verification. Otherwise, 200 years from now we’ll still have articles created in 2006 with no sources. I’m a believer in giving time but only up to a point.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to you using the correct tools and seeing you on my talk page raising these issues then, rather than at AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can assist by going through the unsourced articles category tree and identifying sports articles and then compiling a list for relevant wiki projects to target article improvements. That would prevent this type of AFD by getting to those pages first. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And is this something you are currently doing? Or you just pinging AfDs in the hope other editors do all the actual sourcing? Abcmaxx (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t particularly care for the accusatory tone of your questions. You clearly aren’t here to do anything but be combative so I am done talking to you. FYI talking to editors in this way is one way to have them avoid talking to you. The likelihood that I would ever consider reaching out to you before taking an article to AFD has now reduced to zero simply because of the way you’ve chosen to engage here.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the first person to point out your poor quality AfD nominations particularly in the sports subject field and your reaction above to constructive criticism indicates that you have absolutely failed to take the point on board. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks says something more about you then it does about me.4meter4 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added lots of sources, including academic ones that I managed to find. I was not able to access the Panorama article from 1972 mentioned above though, if someone can add that in that would be amazing. The article still requires a lot of work overall but at least we have more than enough WP:RS to reaffirm notability and put this AfD to rest. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per expansion and sources found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]