Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Janniger

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 keep. I know I'm not an administrator anymore but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close this with a consensus to keep the article. The arguments put forward to keep this article outweight those proposed to delete it. There is a concern about how the subject's notability might be considered as temporary, but I'm afraid this is more a policy question rather than something that can be determined specifically for this article, and this article alone. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 10:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I am reviewing this close based on comments at WP:ANI and re-closing it as No Consensus. Per WP:NACD, this was a contentious discussion and should not have been closed by a non-administrator. As per WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.". Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Janniger

[edit]
Edmund Janniger (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)

Per WP:POLITICIAN. No notable career. Has 15 minutes of fame when appointed as advisor to Minister of national Defence — and, for a period of about a week, enjoyed attention in popular imageboards — however notability cannot be temporary. WTM (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Janniger represents a historic first. He holds the record for being Poland's youngest sub-cabinet official. Janniger has received major press coverage. Even following his resignation, Janniger continues to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Cachets687 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Always among employees of the government one is the youngest. Has Wikipedia now become a book of records? Somehow I can not find information about Jan Lang (Advisor in Polish Ministry of Finance in 2013, he was 21 yo then) or Adam Malczak (Advisor in Polish Ministry of Interior in 2013, he was 21 yo then) although they also once held this record. --WTM (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lang and Malczak did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Janniger continues to receive major press coverage. Cachets687 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please allow me to clarify. Rzeczpospolita, Wprost, TVN24, TVP Info, etc. are not tabloids. They are the most respected news outlets in Poland. Janniger is notable as a sub-cabinet official, as a politician who represents a historic first, and as a political figure who receives significant press coverage. Cachets687 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, he is not a "politician" as you suggest. He is just a young guy being briefly used for publicity purposes by an experienced politician as Antoni Macierewicz is. He by himself is NOT notable other than by association with his protector. kashmiri TALK 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an example of political propaganda. Janniger is a "politician" per reliable sources (e.g. Rzeczpospolita). I have not seen a single source to support your conspiracy theory that Janniger was "being briefly used for publicity purposes". Such assertions need to be based on independent reliable sources. Cachets687 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notable achievements in any field so far. Media coverage alone does not make a person notable. He is a president and a founder of a limited in scope students organization from a university where both of his parents are professors. Darked (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made no other edits and zero edits on any Wikipedia since 3 Feb 2014 Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made 780 edits worlwide. --WTM (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Automatic account rename. >zero edits. Darked (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC) With zero edits from Feb 2012 until this AfD on enWiki Collect (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC) So what? E. Janniger's achievements are getting bigger because of my dry spell on en:wikipedia? Can you point out any other partisan/politically edit/vote by me? If not, what is your point? Darked (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - minor governmental employee, short term career, temporary fame. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable in Poland per many sources, and in the past "substantial media coverage in reliable sources for more than one event" has generally been found sufficient on Wikipedia. Both parents have Wikipedia articles - and notability is not inherited, but does tend to be a "tie-breaker" in such cases. Collect (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relevance for Wikipedia. He only was serveral days (!) advisor to a Polish minister. That's not enough. --Pressemappe (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made no other edits on enWiki Collect (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made 1,247 edits worlwide. --WTM (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly meets our GNG as the subject of multiple, independently-published sources of presumed notability. See the extensive Polish-language sources already showing in the footnotes. Everything else is sort of IDONTLIKEIT, ITDOESNTSEEMTOBEIMPORTANT mutterings, in the final analysis. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above comments. Notability is not temporary, a few days' fame is insufficient. Being employed as an "advisor", even at a government ministry, is not sufficient for an encyclopaedia article, either. kashmiri TALK 11:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are a few points to consider. The article has been read over 7800 times since the start of December. Janniger’s notability is clearly not temporary. For example, Janniger and associates created a nonprofit last week, instantly making headlines in Poland. In en:wiki we have pages for Assistants to the Secretary of Defense (even Acting assistants). Most importantly, Janniger meets and exceeds the standards set in WP:POLITICIAN. By deleting this article, we would do an injustice to the many readers who are interested in Polish politics. Cachets687 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find Lukasz Lukomski's opinion on this to be persuasive, especially given their status as an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia. As a side note, Collect's tagging of votes is not very nice, and he would be doing himself a favor to remove the tags, but that's only my opinion (and I don't know whether it is improper to do so, besides). generic_hipster 23:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tagging of !votes of persons who do not appear to have been active on Wikipedia otherwise is common, especially where there is a reasonable likelihood they did not happen upon this discussion by mere happenstance :(. I note that any article existing or not existing on any other site is not relevant here - all we decide here is whether the person is notable under enWiki policies and guidelines (WP:GNG). Collect (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are lots of people who satisfy the GNG without doing anything that merits being notable. If we're going to clean them out, which would require a change to notability policy/guidelines, we should start in Kardashian territory and work our way down up through. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment"...this is not the case, so keep. SethWhales talk 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably should have been instead of relisting the second time, but I am relisting it since there were no comments. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Even if one, for the sake of argument, were to accept that WP:ONEEVENT is relevant here, the article would not be suitable for deletion per Wikipedia:WI1E: “When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion.” Janniger’s appointment to head a think-tank in New Jersey resulted in substantial coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. Wprost: [1]) As he is covered in numerous reliable sources, there is no reason to delete/merge this article. Cachets687 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how serious [2] is, through it is certainly a nice achievement for someone so young. But the coverage of this is a short paragraph reprinted by several medias, with no analysis or such, and it was only covered along the lines of "look, that young person who made news few weeks ago did something mildly interesting again". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, is registering a company/nonprofit and getting a website supposed to be a notable achievement? Sorry, I should then become a Wikipedian with an article! Let me also notice that either the iga.global website is absolutely unrepresentative of their activities or the guy has no idea what a thinktank is, and I am writing this as a member of a few real thinktanks. Else - consider it a threat - I will add BLPs of quite a few friends of mine who tried to promote their consultancy services as "thinktanks"; and will refer to this thread in case anyone wants to delete them! Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted before, Janniger is notable as a sub-cabinet official, as a politician who represents a historic first, and as a political figure who receives significant press coverage. Establishing a nonprofit is not intrinsically a notable achievement. Yet, the media coverage does show that the public eye has undoubtedly followed Janniger into his new endeavors, with reliable sources, including Wirtualna Polska, providing critical analysis of Janniger’s position in the US. Even yesterday, Fakt published a new article on Janniger. Cachets687 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adviser is NOT a "sub-cabinet official". There is no such post in the civil service as "adviser". These are all posts of various external "helpers", often not even paid from the respective ministry budget. Moreover, he was adviser for only two weeks (24 Nov – 8 Dec) which still makes it fall perfectly within WP:ONEEVENT. That means, he was briefly in the media for two weeks in Nov/Dec, later one or two publications, and that's it. Plus, his USA company established around a year ago. Honestly, mere European Commission has several thousand advisers many of whom come up in the media from time to time; some might even have own consultancy companies. I can't imagine these facts alone would make them independently notable. kashmiri TALK 01:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These claims are blatantly false. As Advisor to the Minister of National Defence (Doradca w gabinecie politycznym ministra), Janniger was, per Polish law, a sub-cabinet official. As the relevant statute clearly states, an Advisor is a Member of the Political Cabinet and is highly paid for a public official. See Dz.U.2008.73.429 ([3]). For your information, the Advisor to the Minister of National Defence has historically been compensated 9459,99 PLN per month. See interpellation 844 ([4]). Cachets687 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, (1) existence of a salary scale is no proof that advisers are sub-cabinet officials. Nor that are even "officials" at all - there is no "adviser" grade in Polish Civil Service. If you read your linked law again, you will see: "A salary scale for government officials... AND advisers to officials (...)". The law you linked does indirectly prove that advisers are NOT officials in Poland! (2) Additionally, a salary scale of PLN 3.640–4.720 gross, as in the document you linked, is even below what a Polish attaché gets. Hope you don't argue that all attachés and above should be in Wikipedia because of having a regulated salary scale? Come on. kashmiri TALK 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly meets WP:GNG. Looks like Kashmiri has decided the matter for himself, choosing to post inapplicable information and categorical falsehoods. In “The answer of the Secretary of State in the Ministry of National Defence - under the authority of the Minister - to interpellation no 844 on the functioning of the political cabinet in regard to announced savings in public administration”, then First Deputy Minister of National Defence, Czesław Mroczek, explains to the Sejm that the Advisor to the Minister of National Defense is compensated 6390,69 to 9459,99 PLN per month. ([5]) As its name states, the law I referenced relates to “the principles of remuneration and other benefits for employees of state institutions working in political cabinets, and who serve as advisors or act as advisors to persons holding national leadership positions.” ([6]) How are attachés relevant here? Assistants to the US Secretary of Defense (even Acting assistants) often have pages in en:wiki. Your earlier claim about European Commission advisers is likewise irrelevant. Yet, for the sake of argument, I will point out that there are not “several thousand advisers”, as you claimed, but typically 1 to 4 per European Commissioner. Please stop making manipulative statements. Cachets687 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You have mis-translated the title. Correctly, it specifies "...pay and remuneration OF government employees placed in political cabinet roles AND OF advisers and acting advisers to senior government officials". Which is tantamount to advisers not being considered cabinet officials.
  2. In the linked response to the parliamentary interpellation, Deputy Minister of Defence did not make a general statement on pay but clarified the staff costs in HIS cabinet, which had two advisers paid PLN 9459,99 and PLN 6390,69 per month respectively.
  3. Irrespective of everything, and of the number of advisers working at EU institutions (there are huddreds and hundreds of them), this newspaper [7] informs that Janniger resigned on 30 November. So, his entire political career to-date lasted, well... seven days.
— kashmiri TALK 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, you are once again posting misleading statements. Janniger, per many independent reliable sources, was Advisor to the Minister of National Defence and a Member of the Political Cabinet. (e.g. NaTemat: [8]) Previously, Janniger was a senior staffer at the Sejm for three years, including work as Deputy Chief of Staff to Antoni Macierewicz, then Vice President of Law and Justice, as well as collaboration with the Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Causes of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 Crash. (e.g. TVP Info: [9]). Janniger was also a political operative for Law and Justice as Deputy Campaign Manager. (e.g. Parlamentarny: [10]) It appears that the sub-cabinet position was the culmination of his service. Cachets687 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (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/Edmund_Janniger&oldid=1137819222"