Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advice Polack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: arguments that the topic has not been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. Aside from the concerns over poor sourcing, there appear to be BLP concerns which also do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Polack[edit]

Advice Polack (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)

As this stands today, it's a stub with one ref of poor reliability. I tend to be more of an inclusionist when it comes to 'net memes, but at this stage this doesn't look like a keeper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable trivia. Mcewan (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page. That vesion is not perectly adequate and referenced. It's junk.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be more than adequately referenced to meet basic notability requirements. If it's to be argued that the sources used are unreliable, then it should be explained why they are unreliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the version restored by Giano is not based on reliable sources. This HAS been explained on talk if someone actually bothered to look. NIE (weekly magazine) is NOT a reliable source, for facts and certainly NOT for BLP related stuff (it's a smear mag/tabloid). The rest is just "random crap found on the internet". Nothing to indicate the subject's notability. Nota bene - even if this is kept (and it's hard to AGF some of these votes) the BLP material sourced to NIE and other junk goes. That's just BLP policy and is not subject to a vote.Volunteer Marek 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP delete and salt Even the well-referenced versions of this indicate that it's mostly about making a hash out of one innocent person's life. Also, once I exclude us and Meme Generator, I get next to nothing on this; the references all seem to be in Polish. There is of course going to be a lot of push to keep this, just as was the case for some notorious examples of the past. They should be dismissed in favor of this person's privacy. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Earlier versions make it clear that this is an egregious BLP violation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I concur with above opinion that this is clear BLP violation based on very questionable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There now appears to be an edit war by User:Volunteer Marek who having gutted the excellent content to bring the page down to deletion standard, now seem to be obsessed with having it deleted. I suggest the content and references are restored.  Giano  18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "obsessed with having it deleted". I cut out all the crap and BLP violating stuff several months ago, back in December, and I was fine with the shortened stub version remaining on Wikipedia for the time being - i.e. I didn't nominate it for deletion myself. But since it has been brought to AfD, yes, the subject is not notable (he's some poor provincial desk cop who's life has already been messed up by this stupid meme thing).Volunteer Marek 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are, you are completely obsessed and I shall get to the bottom of why that is - trust me on that one. The encyclopaedia is full of far worse page with far more dodgy references, but this page has stung you; you have been heavily editing it, and now your mate nominates it for deletion. That is most odd - most odd indeed.  Giano  18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, Giano, the only person "obsessed" here is you. Why is that? And if you know of far worse page on the encyclopaedia with far more dodgy references, let me know and I'll cut crap out of them too.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I based my response here solely on your preferred version, not on the truncated version favored by others. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so ridiculous.  Giano  18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just simply not notable, and agree that the expanded version was an egregious violation of BLP. --Nug (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is no BLP as the name has been removed lol.  Giano  19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a "lol" comment right there.Volunteer Marek 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been speedied, deleted and restored before, so I don't think PRODs/speedies apply.Volunteer Marek 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think G10 applies, but not for that reason. G10 can apply even after prods/speedies/restorations. But I can't comprehend why G10 would apply in this case; Poeticbent, would you elaborate please? HaugenErik (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will not reveal the name of the civic politician from the named city in Poland who's been attacked. Our administration is aware of that. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that upon coming to that article "it's an attack page" is a sensible conclusion one might arrive at. It's what I thought when I first saw it, which is why I also nomed it for G10 back in the day. However, there was ... "some" ... discussion about it here and it got restored. I'm guessing Poeticbent thought the same thing when he saw the page.Volunteer Marek 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was more discussion here [2].Volunteer Marek 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am also finding rather strange here, is that when this article was first created, Piotrus (the nominator here) far from objecting to it, actually thanked it's creator for writing it [3]. No mention of any unhappiness then; I think most people will find that very odd.  Giano  09:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thanked the creator for writing about Poland. Nonetheless, after further examination of the article and sources I concluded that this article is non-encyclopedic and needs to go. Nothing strange there. Good-faithed efforts should be commended, even if they end up getting reverted/deleted. That's what creating a friendly environment is all about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely Piotrus; I had not realised you were such a warm, caring and thoughtful person.  Giano  14:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you realized that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pernicious trivia of no proven notability. One mention in a sentence or two in a Web article is hardly the basis for an article. Some poor bloke has his life ruined by internet trolls and this "encyclopaedia" has to immortalise it? Sorry, not seeing why. Paul Marston (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on policy Avoid victimisation is a vital policy. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM and "Presumption in favor of privacy": "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Since the sources in this case are so poor this applies even more here. Paul Marston (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Cirt. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt this is wikipedia not collection of racist stereotypes and personal attacks against individuals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I accept Volunteer Marek's assessment above of the 8 sources cited in the article.[4] No one has refuted that assessment. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Salt if repeatedly recreated, but I did not find any evidence of that. The meme ruined the police officer's life, but I don't think listing his name in the Wikipedia article[5] an egregious BLP violation since it was sourced, although it was correct to remove the name per BLP. Delete per WP:GNG - lack of sufficient source material. If the topic ever gets past WP:GNG, it still would need to get past WP:BLP before there can be an article on the topic. The sourced BLP material itself does not meet WP:BLP, so the BLP information in the Advice Polack article should not be disbursed into other Wikipedia articles and the AfD closer should make a comment towards this. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to image macro; not notable enough for its own article. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 14:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a particularly popular image macro or meme, and it never was. Proof if this is the fact that all the notability is tied to the issue with the person whose photograph was used to create it. So it fails WP:GNG as what it's supposed to be, and it's WP:BLP1E essentially, as an issue related to the person. Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS as well. No matter how one looks at this, it does not merit inclusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. Ten years from now, nobody will know or care. There isn't much in the way of reliable coverage. I am also troubled that an innocent man has had his likeness appropriated and used in a way that makes his life miserable. We at Wikipedia should consider such factors when an article's notability it dubious. The benefit of covering this (and thereby expanding the man's pain) is so small, that it just isn't worth it. Jehochman Talk 19:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability, & BLP contravention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, "pernicious trivia" is a perfect characterization. The only fruits to harvest from this article's existence are divisiveness and recriminations between editors. Only on WP do editors lobby to feed the cancer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it can be, and has been, easily stripped of any BLP concerns, replying on the sources which should be acceptable for non-BLP purposes. As for the BLP concerns, I believe the article written by me highlighted his plight in an encyclopedic and non-dismissive way. The creation of memes involving unintended victims is a real cultural problem. He has been quite keen to raise the profile of his own situation, appearing on TV, etc. But I can accept that the aspect relating to the living person brushes against the BLP policy, so I accepted editors wanting to avoid covering that in depth. In response to an email I received accusing me of being polophobic, I do write articles degenerating Aussies too: She'll be right. However, Australians in general are happy to agree with the negative stereotypes tagged on us. :P I also write articles that happen to annoy people of various cultures, nationalities, religions, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC) (p.s. on holidays atm; not able to dedicate time to this article until Tuesday)[reply]
  • Delete for BLP, and specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Unfortunately that policy contradicts itself--the first sentence says that not every detail should be included even when well-sourced and the second sentence says the article should be "pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" which literally read doesn't allow deleting anything that couldn't be deleted anyway. I would, however, go with the last sentences: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Reporting on a meme meant to disparage a person amounts to prolonging the victimization. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability isn't the only reason to keep an article, and given the obvious BLP problems I think we're better off without. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt — per Mango: repeated recreation seems likely. Right now, there's zero notability, and it's not a meme that passes GNG. And it has clear BLP problems. Cf. Little Fatty, which has substantial coverage, and whose subject even sought some measure of media attention. JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to say unless sources are actually evaluated The version of the article currently visibly is a stub one editor insists on. This [6] is a fuller, sourced version. There is an attempt underway at Talk:Advice_Polack#Sources.2C_one_by_one to evaluate the reliability of the those various sources. I hope editors familiar with Polish media and culture will join the discussion there. Until that's done I don't see how notability can be evaluated, and since presumably very few of the editors commenting above could possibly have read and understood the sources, it's hard to see how there can be any meaningful consensus drawn. EEng (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It disturbs me that (IMO) if this were some other identifiable ethnic or religious group the PC police would be out here in force. But, what the f**k, it's only the Poles, let's flog them some more. I respect that some believe this is some meaningful meme, but, also respectfully, this is predatory and degrading content not worthy of this project. The source cited in the article (as it stands) rather makes the point that once upon the time the Internet was home to genuinely humorous images but that these days it's mainly crap that's not funny at all. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the context of your other comments. EEng (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is anything that amounts to (a) significant coverage in (b) significant sources. This has all the more appearance of being a product of cruising around for what one can find rather than a new Internet meme bursting onto the scene and meriting encyclopedic coverage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably your determination started with a review of the sources and some thought about their reliability. If so, can you please contribute your thoughts to the discussion on source reliability at Talk:Advice_Polack#Sources.2C_one_by_one? EEng (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have assessed the reliability and the notability of the sources. We're also very aware BLP considerations strongly apply here. --Paul Marston (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Giano and John Vandenberg. Piotrus noted on this issue in December when the article was created that he believes the article is notable, and the BLP aspects can be dealt with by removing his name. I think it raises the obvious question: Why has he nominated this article, and why now? I'm concerned by the issues raised by Giano here, and also that an editor has emailed the article creator and accused him of "Polonophobia". This is odd, since this meme began on the Polish internet (by Polish internet users), and is dealing with stereotypes that Poles relate to themselves.
With relation to WP:BLP, we can be guided in this way by Star Wars Kid which does not mention the persons name at all, even though sources give his name. I'm looking at the discussion on sources and am seeing that the sources used are reliable, and that there appears to be a "misunderstanding" of those sources by those who wish for it to be deleted. I think this is either done because they are not familiar with Polish sources, or that they are deliberately misinterpreting the sources. The subject is clearly notable, and this edit by Giano is clearly in compliance with WP:BLP - maybe just delete the external link to the police website. - Jetro (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"they are deliberately misinterpreting the sources". Care to back this accusation up with evidence? You can read Polish then? Can Giano? --Paul Marston (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Paul. I did not intend for it to be portrayed that you personally were misinterpreting sources, I apologize if it appeared that way to you.
I do, however, believe that you may not be fully familiar with the presented Polish sources. At Talk:Advice_Polack#Source1 you stated that Hiro is a webzine. As John Vandenberg points out it is a printed magazine, on pop culture in Poland, and the article in question was published in this edition on pages 38-39. But others are either deliberately misrepresenting sources, or are playing down their reliability. We can't forget that Piotrus himself said the article was notable, but on the article talk page he is playing down the sources used. I am more concerned with Volunteer Marek though; here he states that NIE is ridiculing and trolling him, and that does not seem to be the case (read Nanobear's comments below). It isn't the first time that Volunteer Marek has engaged in such misrepresentation of sources. Given that he is fluent in Polish, one can only reasonably assume he's misrepresenting on purpose. Here is another example where he states the interview is only 30 seconds long. From approx. 1:34 to 3:30 the person is given an opportunity to make comments on the meme, and again from the 5:30 mark til the end of the expose he is again given more time for his comments - almost half of the TV report is devoted to him being given the opportunity to comment - a far cry from "more like 30 seconds". It would appear evident from the above comment and this comment that Volunteer Marek has not even watched the TV report, yet we are supposed to put credence in what he has to say on the issue. This is even harder to do, given his previous history of misrepresentation of sources. - Jetro (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the first time that] Volunteer Marek has engaged in such misrepresentation of sources - do I know you or something? Your accusation is pure nonsense. I have not misrepresented any sources. NIE *is* a trashy tabloid. It is NOT a reliable source on English Wikipedia. The links here [7] are to talk pages or user pages, or one or two instances where the source is used as a reference for itself. Somebody's lying to you, and you either can't be bothered to check yourself or are just happily following along with falsehoods for some reason. It is also NOT considered a reliable source on Polish Wikipedia. Same story is mostly true for the links provided here [8]. And the fact that a source is USED on a project does not make it reliable, just like because some Wikipedia article has some nonsense in it, does not mean the nonsense is true. It just means that crappy editing has slipped through the cracks. And the interview IS 30 seconds long, the program itself is 6 minutes. Again, you either didn't bother to actually check yourself or are happy to lie. The comment on Risker's page linked to the story about the TV program not the program itself, at least when I clicked on it. And both you and Giano REALLY REALLY need to quit it with the bait.
So I have "no history of misrepresentation of sources". Go away, and have fun slandering people somewhere else. Oh yeah, and Giano can take his goofy conspiracy theories and shove them where they belong. There is a real person who's already been hurt and damaged by this idiocy here, and putting some innane Wiki-politics in front of that is just ethically fucked up.
As to the meta issue. I couldn't give a flip about whether this meme and/or article is "anti-Polish". If someone needs to get their kicks in, Polack joke is over thattaway, you guys can have fun. What I do care about is that the article has serious BLP issues, the meme is non-notable, and it has already damaged the personal and professional life of the person involved. There's no way you can present this info - even if it was notable - without making it worse. Apparently quite a number of editors, most of whom I don't know and never interacted with, feel the same way. Note all the "delete and salt" comments. I actually wasn't even the first one to bring up WP:AVOIDVICTIM (I wasn't aware of it), it was others. But, that along with non-notability and BLP issues, is central here.Volunteer Marek 17:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hiro is hardly the most notable publication out there. Tomek Cegielski, the author of the article, is part of the "Redakcja strony internetowej" ("Editorial staff of the web page"), so it's hardly surprising it might be regarded as a webzine rather than a free newspaper. Cegielski has very little presence as a journalist elsewhere. The article devotes only a handful of sentences to the topic. Once again though, BLP issues are paramount.--Paul Marston (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and deal with BLP issues as per Giano, John Vandenberg and Jetro. It would appear that part of this discussion hinges on this NIE article, although there are other reliable sources. NIE is an anomaly in Polish media, in that it is vehemently anti-clerical (particularly anti-Catholic in stance), and it does use some vulgarity in some of its writings. Being anti-Catholic in Poland can equate to heresy in some quarters of society, especially amongst the right-wing and nationalist camps. NIE has moderate usage on Polish Wikipedia as a reliable source, including on BLP articles, and some limited usage on English Wikipedia as a reliable source. The NIE article itself provides background information on the meme, and an interview with the officer. In the interview, it is sympathetic to his story, allowing him to put forward his views. It doesn't appear to be trolling him, etc. It also notes that he was set to retire at the end of 2012. At the very end of the article in the last sentence it does include a profanity, but it isn't directed at the subject. The NIE article/interview is mentioned in this NaTemat.pl article, and it doesn't say anything negative about the interview that NIE conducted. NIE would indeed appear to be a reliable source here. Nanobear (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to understand what, in your eyes, makes this article encyclopedic. You also felt Polandball was encyclopedic. I regret that we appear to, both of us, fall in historically opposing camps. It might be better for this to be decided by editors not at odds over Eastern Europe (i.e., less myself, yourself, Giano,...) so this doesn't spiral out of control. Giano has already played his malignant EEML conspiracy alive and well accusations card elsewhere, I would prefer to believe we've moved on. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough Vecrumba, I would like to believe that too, but, alas, I see no evidence of it - do you? Equally amusing, is the fact that I don't much like this page either, but that is not grounds for deletion. In fact, it meets all criteria for a page, a view which until very recently was shared by the nominator here, Piotrus. You talk of Polonophobia (is that even the right word) on Risker's TP, but you are missing the point: Advice Polack began in Poland on a Polish website and was created by Poles satirically to exemplify their own national vices. So yes, I am deeply saddened to see so many members so of the "former" Eastern European Mailing List turning out to vote here. Many of our Arbs were born yesterday Vecrumba - I was not.  Giano  19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is an example of "Polonophobia" or not is beside the point. Who cares. What IS important though is the fact that this page DOES NOT meet criteria for a page, rather it meets most of the criteria for deletion. Lack of notability. Unreliable sources. BLP issues. WP:AVOIDVICTIM. And it's hard to avoid the impression that some of the keep votes (the few there are) here are simply out of spite.Volunteer Marek 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Advice Polack began in Poland on a Polish website and was created by Poles". And yet the Hiro page says: "Najbardziej popularne memy powstałe za granicą, które dotyczą Polaków, to serie „Advice Polack” oraz „Polandball”."--Paul Marston (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano, well, I was surely born before you were. And I am sad to see supporters of the Putin's Russia/Soviet POV starting to pile on here. If you have evidence I'm conspiring please present it at the appropriate forum. I suggest unpiling here and leaving the matter to others and you attack me for conspiracy, that's rich. And, oops, neither offensive memes produkowane w Polsce. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly boy, I would imagine that I am least 40 years older than you - and I can assure you that I am not a Russian or a Bolshevik or whatever it is that they are currently calling themselves. However, you know; I know and he, she and it all know what is going on here. I do hope it won't have to be spread out on the table and result in some time-wasting and protracted Arbcase from which there will be no winner, but if necessary <sigh> I suppose that's where we will all have to go.  Giano  20:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny man. Memes not made in Poland, not my age, you would do better to be less confident in the simple facts you express so confidently. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Given the fad of some British scholars to elevate Stalin to a great war leader and strategist, for example, ethnicity is surely not a predictor of leanings one way or the other although such accusations are made on a daily basis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Giano, John Vandenberg, Jetro, Nanobear. It clearly passes WP:GNG. Some people are very sensitive when it comes to memes, like people wanting to delete Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). ‎ Given the additional information presented by John Vandenberg on the article talk page, we should look at this. List of interviews directly relating to the Advice Polack/Pan Andrzej meme: [9] (August 2011), TVN24 (August 2012), NaTemat.pl (August 2012). List of interviews relating to other memes: Wydarzenia (January 2013) (relating to another internet meme in Poland), Telewizja Polska (January 2013) (a news report claiming that kwejk.pl and similar sites can have an effect on people's lives). Given that he's given 1 interview in 2011, 2 interviews in 2012 and 2 interviews in 2013, indicates that he is following the advice of the lawyer in the TVN24 report. That advice being, to speak often and draw attention to his case. Our responsibility is to portray his case in the article with respect, and this has been done with the version which Giano reverted to[10], which treats the issues in much the same way as Star Wars Kid (mentioned by Jetro above).--Razionale (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's isn't some extensive off-wiki canvassing going on with respect to this AfD then I'm Giano's uncle. Another random user showing up spouting what looks like a pre-rehearsed, pre-written set of arguments which have already been rebutted several times above, and once again completely ignoring the fact that we have a WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM policies. Pathetic and sad.Volunteer Marek 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Razionale...
  1. link already dead
  2. no prosecution over (identified) "greatest simpleton in Poland"
  3. "ruined his life"
  4. other case presented as example, testing the limits of decency, nothing to laugh about
So the question is, are we a repository for a meme identifiable with a specific person, the propagation of which meme will continue to ruin their life? The attention we propose to draw here with an article is part of the problem, not part of the cure. I'm sorry if I continue to see this as simply WP victimizing Poles in general and one specific individual in particular. This is why people leave this project, when victimization becomes "encyclopedic." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you guys are getting your wires crossed. Whoever is providing you with these supposed "sources" obviously doesn't speak Polish and it seems like neither do you. These sources which you link to above are general sources about how idiotic internet memes can fuck up real people's lives. True enough. But they do not establish the notability of this particular meme, some of them don't even mention it. You and Jetro, and yes, even JohnV, and others really need to get your story together and decide on a consistent - and verifiable way - of presenting these supposed sources before you start with the "Keep" votes.
And presenting the argument as "we must document the harm done to this person's life by this meme" is especially cynical and low down dirty.Volunteer Marek 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, please desist from accusing others of off-wiki canvassing simply because they disagree with your opinion. I found this discussion by way of this talk page discussion. My sources are notably from this and related pages here. You are also accusing a well-respeted member of this community and ex-Arb John Vandenberg of such behavior in your comments, and I think you should take stock of your brash comments against other editors in this discussion, including your comments directed against me. And you should apologize, now!
WP:AVOIDVICTIM is quite likely an interesting part of our BLP policy, but in this instance it is being misinterpreted and misapplied. By the number of interviews that the person in question has given, he is actually presenting himself as part of the story of the meme. The article as it was written is not prolonging or increasing the victimisation, but is very much in his favor. As other sources by John Vandenberg demonstrate, the meme and his directly-related story, has been used in Polish news media and some scholarly articles, on how internet memes can have an effect on others. In other words, I remain convinced. The above linked Star Wars Kid is a prime example of how we deal with such examples on this project.--Razionale (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your example has gone viral with millions of views. Here we have a meme originated outside Poland that is so unremarkable except for having pained the individual in question, and being yet another dumb Polacks not really funny joke, that the only sources are pretty much Polish ones kvetching about a retread of Polandball. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Piotrus asked me to comment. I haven't looked at what his position is. Looking for myself, the only conceivable way this could be kept is if all the revisions referring to an individual were revision-deleted, or, even better, the whole article, and an article on the meme itself started over. I don't see any evidence that it's important enough as a meme to justify that. When removing all objectionable content leaves something that isn't substantial, there;'s no reason to have an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the editors criticizing Piotrus for changing his mind on how notable this is: I don't see anything wrong with someone changing his mind upon closer reflection. You can criticize someone for inflexibly sticking to a point, but not for actually using his head. I agree with Piotrus and DGG above. I looked at the "full version" and don't see anything worth saving after the crap has been cut out. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advice_Polack&oldid=1091560363"