Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Zimniak

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. No consensus leaning delete. Because it's a WP:BLP and there are stronger arguments in favor of delete based in policy, I'm going to delete. No consensus An editor has come to my talk page and make a strong case that this AfD should result in no consensus and they have sources for this BLP. v/r - T P 19:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Zimniak

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

This man clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition, the article remains completely unsourced since its creation in February, and all of the sources I found on the internet were primary. Interchangable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 18:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commercially published and has been nominated for the Janusz A. Zajdel Award, which appears to be fairly prestigious in Polish sci-fi circles. I'm thinking that an author nominated for a comparable award in the UK or US would almost certainly be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for an award is not a criterion listed in WP:AUTHOR. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your statement on "a comparable award." WP:AUTHOR states that "significant critical attention" is necessary - I cannot find any critical attention. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:AUTHOR is a guideline, not an enforceable rule. WP:UCS, WP:IAR and WP:BURO all apply. As to your second point, I'm not saying that this should be kept because "other stuff exists", I'm saying that deleting this could be seen as systemic bias against non-English-speaking cultures, which we generally seek to avoid. It is natural that English-speaking authors get more attention on the internet, since the vast majority of internet traffic is in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hierarchy of policies, guidelines, and essays; however I will concede your point about bias. If someone can source the article with a few other references, (besides his homepage) to prove his notability, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the nomination. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Necrothesp. Edward321 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - Finally has a few minutes to investigate. I'm going to take the English-speaking "bias" off the table because I speak both languages. If we look at Amazon only his 1986 book Homo determinatus gets a hit (but it is not order-able). Google just gives echoes of EN:WP and of the author's own website & facebook entry. If you switch to Google.PL and filter out his own blog entries and his own web page, you get some lower-level commentary on a few of his books. Is he of comparable Pol-SyFi stature to Stanisław Lem? No. Polish science fiction only has his name listed with no commentary (the same editor that created this article also added the reference in the main article). The author is not notable enough for a separate article - it is questionable if the author is notable enough to be mentioned in the Polish science fiction article. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An author of two book, many short stories, seems notable to me. His name is mentioned in at least two books discussing Polish sci-fi ([1] and [2]). I'll try to post more within a few days, but I'd suggest starting an AfD on pl wiki first and see how it goes, to see articles used to support or defend this deletion there. PS. I'd also consider all authors who had their work recognized by nomination to the Zajdel award automatically notable in the Polish sci-fi world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject may or not be notable, but he is a living person, and there are no sources meeting WP:RS anywhere close to the page. Mere listings linked above provide nothing detailed or direct. Until sources are found and placed on the page, there's nothing to keep. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP actually says that for BLPs material "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Nothing in this stub falls into that category. None of it is in any way contentious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because absolutely nothing in the article is sourced! I have stated earlier that I will withdraw the nomination if a few reliable sources can be added to prove his notability. I posted that on July 24 and there is still no response. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My fault by not including: BLP fails to pass WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage by multiple independent sources. A BLP must have sources for specific reasons but all articles must pass GNG. A BLP with no RS must be deleted, unless a suitable merge or redirect target can be identified, and I'm not seeing that here. As to contentious, the article is up for deletion and several editors agree with that assertion. This meets a mild standard for contentious, I'd assert. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious" refers to the facts in the article, not the question of notability! Since the article makes no claims about him that could be seen to be contentious there is only the notability point to discuss, which is what we are doing! There is no rule that says unsourced BLPs should be deleted, only that unsourced contentious material in BLPs should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a rule for articles, like this one, created after March 18, 2010. Were it not for the self-published link in the article, this could easily be BLPPROD'd, and it's fairly likely that would stick. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of the author, as such, the article does not meet the general notability guideline. No prejudice about recreating the article should additional sources meeting GNG become available. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:03, 5 August 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.