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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow-info

[edit]

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

I've looked for sources for this website but the best available are [1] [2] and being mere mentions I don't think the site meets WP:WEB. The Scholar search could have something more, but the articles are behind paywalls - frankie (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am open to somebody explaining why this website meets WP:WEB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Piotrus, the author (User:Krakowski) needs to explain why this website meets WP:WEB. I created this article to attempt to clean up a mess at the AfD for Marek Strzała. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look on the web, I find a plethora of primary sources that should used instead of using someone's travel guide. So I'm updating my opinion from weak delete to delete. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I have already stated before, 482 Wikipedia articles about Kraków feature Krakow-info website as our resource base.[3] One must acknowledge this fact and adjust their strategy accordingly. — Krakowski (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as a source does not mean that the source itself is notable in the manner that WP:GNG and WP:WEB contemplate, and in this case the coverage that could indicate such notability is near non-existent - frankie (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about [www.cracow-life.com www.cracow-life.com] or [www.explore-krakow.com www.explore-krakow.com] or one of many others. I just don't know why those 482 articles didn't use primary sources (like http://www.krakow.pl/english/ or http://www.polska.pl/) instead of rehashing someone's travel guide as the primary source? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, Magiczny Kraków (http://www.krakow.pl/english/) should also have a stub in Wikipedia because it is being used in 410 articles as a credible source of info about the city.[4] Please read what the Primary source stands for. Krakow-info is not a primary but a Secondary source. I see absolutely no reason why we cannot be more thorough in our coverage of the local subject-specific work-horses than Lonely Planet and Frommer's. — Krakowski (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think NONE of them should have a stub. By your logic every webpage cited in an article needs a stub. No, definitely not! Ajh1492 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of articles that it is being used in has no effect on whether the subject meets notability for an article, which requires significant coverage about the subject to be presented - frankie (talk) 13:55, 10 June 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.