Talk:Naval battle near Hel

Notability issues

I cannot find any internet sources mentioning this battle so it might not be notable enough to be its own article. I also have the slight suspicion that it is a hoax, but only slightly as the page creator is a long-time editor. Article title is also a minor issue. I will nominate for deletion if the creator cannot provide verifiable, reliable sources. Thank you. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The book by Edmund Kosiarz, a renowned and respected Polish historian and retired colonel of the Polish Navy, is a reliable source. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

But what about other sources? If that book is the only source, then why not simply merge this information to other articles? IMO, notability has not yet been established. 舎利弗 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to merge this information to other articles, go ahead and do it. Or perhaps wait until somebody else adds more information, give it some time. Tymek (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the information you wrote is useful. But I'm just having doubts that it deserves its own article. Can you please provide me other sources to establish its individual notability? If the event does not pass WP:GNG, I'm afraid I will have to AfD (along with your other recent contributions) so we'll know what others editor think of whether this should have its own article or be merged and redirected to related articles. 舎利弗 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you want if my contributions keep you awake at night, but discuss it with other editors, as you do not own Wikipedia and do not have the authority to randomly delete articles. BTW is there a rule that requires more than one source? Tymek (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't own Wikipedia or have the authority to randomly delete articles. We have discussions, then we build consensus. That's why I'm discussing you here other possibilities, such as merging these battles to related articles. Please do not take offense, as I sense a change in your tone. To answer your question:

We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement. (WP:WHYN)

Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. (WP:GNG, footnote 3)

I appreciate your work. Truly I do. That's why I didn't AfD them right ahead; I wanted to have a thorough consultation with you, being a longtime editor after all. Have a good day. I wish you reconsider. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

More sources have been provided. If you strongly want to merge this article with some other one, be bold and do it. I sense that you are not an expert on Polish Navy, so it is going to be quite a task. Cheers. Tymek (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I am assuming good faith and will not pursue an AfD. Have a good day. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)