Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witold Chrabąszcz
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Witold Chrabąszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is dubious he is notable and the article meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO. There is no in-depth treatment of his life, or anything but few mentions in passing. An interview in (reliable) Polish magazine [1] is not about him, but about the election. Not seeing anything better than few bio blurbs and such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Based on the current state of the article, has sufficient evidence of notability. Authoritative Wprost interview with him features 15+ questions that cover both biographical and campaign topics. (In addition to other Wprost mentions.) Substantiated by FEC records and authoritative publications. Google search for "Witold Chrabaszcz" comes up with numerous authoritative sources. Overall - more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.67.15 (talk) 03:14, June 10, 2017 (UTC)
- Your best source is still the interview (with all the problems of WP:INTERVIEW), and again, it is not about the subject but about the US elections. The subject was asked a few questions about himself and answered it. This is hardly enough for anywhere near GNG. Btw, dear anon, are you the article's creator? Where you paid to create it? Please note that our policies (WP:PAID) require disclosure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- No need for baseless accusations here - this AfD will be decided on merit. I'm Polish, interested in the subject of big data in politics, and consider this entry both notable and valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E104:4800:7C4B:207D:BB45:DAE (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, one's own opinion may be good enough for blog, social media or such, but not Wikipedia. The subject fails WP:NBIO, and you haven't shown otherwise, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- No need for baseless accusations here - this AfD will be decided on merit. I'm Polish, interested in the subject of big data in politics, and consider this entry both notable and valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E104:4800:7C4B:207D:BB45:DAE (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your best source is still the interview (with all the problems of WP:INTERVIEW), and again, it is not about the subject but about the US elections. The subject was asked a few questions about himself and answered it. This is hardly enough for anywhere near GNG. Btw, dear anon, are you the article's creator? Where you paid to create it? Please note that our policies (WP:PAID) require disclosure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- interviews are not useful sources for notability; there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No disrespect to the anon ips trying to save this article, but I don't agree with their interpretation of the sources. Notability is established through reliable third party sources that discuss the subject "in depth". I haven't seen such sources. This Afd can be closed here. Lourdes 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.