Talk:Marek Laczynski

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Visual arts Start‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

prod[edit]

Subject passes WP:NARTIST with work in the V&A. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has 3 sources, one of which is a small bio on a site and then another being a university website which is prohibited under Wikipedia guidelines. Lack of RS and lack of nobility. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source number 1 and 2 have the same exact write up which is also against guidelines. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You PRODded it. It was unprodded, as is allowed. You cannot restore the PROD. For the fourth time, the next step is for you to nominate the article for WP:AFD if you feel it should be deleted. Meters (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Every single source you have posted for Marek Laczynski all have the same bio info. Same words, same paragraphs, same exact words down to the punctuation. This is an obvious press release for this subject. And against Wikipedia guidelines for RS to not have the same exact information. As well as two of the articles containing the exact amount of info and the same exact info. With another source being from a university which is also against guidelines. There might be 1 RS which was just added but even with just one RS that’s a pretty weak keep. I will be motioning for AFD soon. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are maybe 2 RS, everything else is not useful or allowed 38.141.252.172 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly incorrect and now socking. Theroadislong (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]