Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination)

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 WP:IAR I declare this discussion null and void and will relist a fresh blank discussion. This discussion is far too polluted with tangent matters and bad faith that consensus can not be distilled from it. Closing as no-consensus would cause disruption IMO, so this one gets a fresh start. Concerned parties please conduct yourselves in accordance with civility and policy in the new discussion, should you choose to do so. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The family doesn't seem notable. Don't be fooled by seeming plentiful refs: they are not about the family. The better referenced part of the article consists of poor forks of info about Polish general history and nobility in specific. Next, several members of the family are described, the first one has any notability claims and has a separate article; perhaps Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski may also be notable, nobody else seems to be. The family might have had one notable member and the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two, but that doesn't make them notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family for last year's nom. I suggest deleting the article, and if there is consensus, splitting the section on "Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski" into its own article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From article's author -- Exxess -- Quoting Poitrus -- "The family doesn't seem notable. Don't be fooled by seeming plentiful refs: they are not about the family." Equivocal statement followed by an out-and-out lie. To dismiss that accusation, and for one example, click here: -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. The family is noted in several of the widely-published references available in book form, too. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules, and Piotrus/Prokonsul is making an argument against WP:RS and {{Cite book}}. I'm not sure how to handle out-and-out fabrication, deftly hidden behind what appears to be an equitable statement on the surface. Given the boldness of the equivocation, fabrication, and insinuations from Piotrus/Prokonsul (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 to discover Piotrus' tactics.), going straight to arbitration might be all that's possible. There's nothing reasonable to deal with from Piotrus, although what's right is reasonable. If the article survives this second deletion nomination (the first failed), Poitrus will again nominate the article for deletion (multiple jeopardy) after bidding his time until he gets what he wants (fishing for a deletion), the reading public be damned. Nor is it beyond Piotrus to resort to sockpuppeting and meatpuppet dogpiling, according to the Arbitration Requests against him. Piotrus/Prokonsul is pressing a suit against this particular article for a second time for the same cause of action (non-notability, although the family is proven to be notable in the reference works), when a judgment on this same matter was rendered previously in his first deletion attempt -- "Four Keep Votes" to "One Delete Vote". This article should not be sued for a deletion a second time for the same cause of action, when judgment has already been rendered. Piotrus is abusing his power of administration, and has been bidding his time to fish for a deletion of this article for personal reasons of his own. The existing arbitration cases against Piotrus demonstrate he's perfectly capable of resorting to sneaky and underhanded tactics. It's on the record Piotrus, a.k.a. Prokonsul, has been recently urged, cautioned, and admonished. My real concern and basis for argument, given I now understand who I'm dealing with (Piotrus), is that an administrator, nonetheless, is making a fraudulent and insidious argument against WP:RS and {{Cite book}}. The family is notable. The reference works in question are verifiable and widely-published third-party sources. What else needs to be said here is Wikipedia is to be open and free, and someone is trying to enforce their own personal policy that families per se, as the subject of an article, are off-limits, and they are trying to do so by resorting to fraud by stating this particular family is not-notable. The family is demonstrably notable. That's another concern. The family itself is addressed directly in widely-published, verifiable, and third-party sources. I don't see where Piotrus has any basis or authority for deciding the subject matter of content. Opinion may vary as to degree of notability, and different thresholds exist, but this family is notable. In the future, I would like to see more articles about other Polish families who make appearances in widely-published sources. I believe that's the purpose of an Encyclopedia -- to serve as the source of entrance to a topic. I'm not sure why certain individuals have arrogated to themselves the role of information-and-topic suitability gatekeepers. -- Exxess (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a depository for genealogy trivia. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strong delete. Cited sources I checked although somewhat related, don't seem to support any of the specific data. Family might actually be mentioned somewhere if offline references are accepted on good faith but the links lead nowhere, leaving a bad feeling, tied with WP:NPA and WP:CIV violations.
    Note, changed vote from Delete to Strong delete per WP:PROVEIT. Quote: "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent wants a link. Poeticbent gets a link. Click here: -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
I want to know if Poeticbent has made any attempt to verify (Wikipedia:Verifiability) the reference sources given, beyond surfing the Internet. The reference sources given are available offline in the form of books in libraries worldwide. All sources listed in the form of books, I have personally read and verified. It's becoming very apparent Poeticbent is mistaking an inline citation for an online citation and making that mistake the basis for a vote. The reference sources in the form of books are available offline. User Petri Krohn has made the same observation, stating in the article history, "The given references are printed books, do not expect to be able to read them on worldcat.org or amazon.com!" -- Exxess (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Poeticbent's object is an inadvertent argument against WP:RS and {{Cite book}}. Not a personal attack, but these assertions are bizarre, as well as the accompanying vote. The article is patently well-referenced. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules, and Poeticbent is making an argument against WP:RS and {{Cite book}}, and unreasonsably expects published books to be available to read on amazon.com and worldcat.org. The books are available for reading from multiple libraries. Poeticbent is on the record as needing to be mentored (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2). Forgive the uncharitable observation, but it's the best I can do in response to a bizarre assertion the article references are no good. Where are the mentors to direct Poeticbent to WP:RS and {{Cite book}}? -- Exxess (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're being VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, Poeticbent. Do I need to SCAN jpeg images of the pages from the sources that mention this family? GO TO A LIBRARY, GET THE BOOKS YOURSELF, TURN TO THE PAGES MENTIONED, AND READ. Instead of being AMBIGUOUS with Wikipedia policy quotes, which is an attempt to make yourself look authoritative, BE SPECIFIC about what you require. Exxess (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Wikpedia:
"A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example:
  • Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1."
That's EXACTLY what's provided at the end of this article, Poeticbent. Now, YOU cite an example of what YOU would like to see. Exxess (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a place for non-notable individuals' Roots describing other largely non-notable relatives. Nihil novi (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The family is notable. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules. See WP:RS and {{Cite book}}. I've dedicated the time to researching this particular noble Polish family, which was a result of reading about Jarosław Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło in James H. Billington's book FIRE IN THE MINDS OF MEN: ORIGINS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY FAITH. This peculiar Dąbrowski keeps making appearances in the historical record in many other works, as does his brother (not discussed in my Wikipedia article). I myself personally would like to see Wikipedia entries and links for each remaining family under the Radwan Coat-of-Arms, as well as all the other noble Polish families under the remaining Polish Coat-of-Arms appearing in Wikipedia. To be precise, the szlachta were the Polish nation (until the time of the Partitions), to the exclusion of the other estates in Poland, lawfully speaking, which explains the szlachta's legal franchises, rights, and privileges, despite great differences in wealth and social standing amongst the szlachta, peasants sometimes in command of greater wealth than particular members of the szlachta, but peasants without the same legal franchises, rights, and privileges. Also, I think this particular article discussing the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family is essentially more than a mere discussion of which szlachta were related to each other. The significance is in this fact using Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski herbu Radwan as an example -- Dąbrowski's family was a fundamental influence on his life, which included growing up in an atmosphere of patriotism in the environs of Warsaw at the end of the nineteenth century, emphasis from the above on FAMILY, FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE, ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM. In my mind, this is so patently obvious, hence this article demonstrating just that -- FAMILY (nobility), FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE (szlachta leading the charge for Polish independence, sovereignty, honor, and freedom, not always, but often), and ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM. Exxess (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • SEVERELY STRONG KEEP. From article's author -- Exxess: The delete nomination is suspect given the administrator's reputation, and another Strong Delete Vote is from an editor recently sanctioned for needing mentoring concerning fundamental Wikipedia policies. Had I been aware of arbitration sanctions, this deletion debate would've been handled much differently than what appears now, as I would've known precisely whom I'm dealing with. I don't understand either's arguments, as on the surface they appear immediately unreasonable. -- Exxess (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) -- Don't be fooled by the self-styled "Prokonsul" Konieczny's self-contradicting contentions, which "seem" to have merit. This is his second attempt to have this article deleted, and I make a motion to have him banned from further nominating this article from any other deletion attempts and nominations, as this is simply becoming a case of harassment and double jeopardy from the self-styled Prokonsul. The self-styled Prokonsul made this case before and lost. Given he's named himself "Prokonsul," I understand he has trouble distinguishing between delusions of grandeur and notability.[reply]
See -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 -- for facts. Prokonsul/Piotrus, has repeatedly edit-warred, confirmed recently by consensus. Piotrus, a.k.a. Prokonsul, has been recently urged, cautioned, and admonished, also by consensus. I assert this administrator is hostile (edit-wars), although in a deft and insinuating way. I am being civil. QUOTING Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade -- "But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable."
Quoting Wikipedia on notability: 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'
Quoting a user from last year's failed deletion attempt: 'Konieczny's argument is self-contradicting -- "the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two" obviously makes the family notable. Someone going to the Radwan coat of arms in almost all historical chronicles (Polish armorials) will see this family listed, and the Wikipedia entry for Radwan arms has a link to this family, which is useful for discovering more information about them. Hopefully, more families listed under the Radwan arms will do the same, as this will give insight into the fates of families listed. Polish genealogists with their own family names listed in Polish armorials will probably find this information insightful, and the footnotes section will give them starting points.'
In essence, what makes a family notable? -- its members, and in terms of Poland's revolutionary and patriotic history, this family has contributed its fair share via its members, some of whom have married into other noble families higher on the grandeur scale, which is what is confusing the self-styled Prokonsul -- grandeur and notability are not one in the same.
Regarding the links, some of them have gone stale, but that can be fixed.
Why is this listed as a broken citation? -- "This family of ancient origin are connected to famous Polish-born English author Joseph Conrad[2][broken citation]" ... I just checked the link, and it works perfectly. Jerzy Zdrada is currently a professor and his book, with sources to backup that assertion, is available worldwide. Exxess (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exxess is the anonymous creator of the listed article, and his contributions to this project are limited to that single issue. In other words: a WP:SPA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now don't be presumptuous, self-styled "Prokonsul." I've made contributions to other articles, so it be to your advantage to not assert a WP:SPA, which is inaccurate, as are your self-contradicting reasons for nominating this article, yet again, for deletion. Anonymity is something I prefer at this time for reasons having nothing to do with this article. Exxess (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of discussing something with a person who violates civility and calls others names ("presumptuous, self-styled "Prokonsul"" and such). If you apologize and remove your offensive (and blockable: WP:NPA, WP:CIV) remarks, I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. Otherwise, I have stated my case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From article's author -- Exxess: I am being civil. QUOTING Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade -- "But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable." You've YET AGAIN nominated this article for deletion. You failed the first time, Four Keep votes to One Delete vote. I see no purpose in yet again nominating this article for deletion, other than you've been bidding your time and fishing for a deletion.
I'm being PROVOCATIVE, Prokonsul, because your logic appears extremely FLAWED to me, yet you have summary power to nominate, YET AGAIN, this article for deletion. In a sense, this abuse of power of yours, is UNCIVILIZED, and you need to make a better point-for-point case ON THE ISSUE OF NOTABILITY. I do NOT think you have a case, as suggested by the facts and evidence I've just entered for the record. You DO NOT have any case beyond some VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS assertion of yours that this family does not SEEM to be notable, when I've entered objective evidence, based on Wikipedia's Notability criteria, that the family is indeed notable. You are merely being ARGUMENTATIVE for PERSONAL reasons of your own, which your own statements suggest, and I make a motion to have this nomination for deletion DISMISSED and DELETED with extreme prejudice, as you are basing your position on some VAGUE HUNCH, which is not sufficient for an article deletion, so-called Prokonsul. If Wikipedia could sanction you, I would recommend that. Exxess (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd personally like to see the self-styled Prokonsul state his own criteria for notability (which is what this argument is about), divorced from this article, so his contentions could be picked apart as compared to Wikipedia's statements on notability. I don't think my judgment, in terms of this article and notability, should even rise to the level of a controversy. I think the self-styled Prokonsul, making his own personal statement of notability, would bring a lot of clarity to the plaintiff Prokonsul's reoccurring and redundant complaint, a perfect case of double jeopardy. Exxess (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this listed as a broken citation? -- "Scions of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family, an old patriotic Polish noble/gentry family[1][not in citation given] [2],[broken citation]" ... The links works. Page 103 of Lerski's work states:
"DABROWSKI, JAROSLAW (1836-1871), revolutionary and general. The offspring of an OLD POLISH GENTRY FAMILY, ..."
To state the patently obvious, that's a reference to the Radwan Dabrowski-Zadlo family. The family were NOTED in Lerski's work, HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF POLAND, 966-1945. It's patently obvious since they were NOTED, they've met a criteria for NOTABILITY. Exxess (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this being a broken citation, it boggles the mind -- "This family of ancient origin are connected to famous Polish-born English author Joseph Conrad[2][broken citation]" ... Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, available worldwide, states on page 10:
"Przez żonę Piotra, Marię z Korzeniowskich, byli Dąbrowscy spowinowaceni ze znanym pisarzem JÓZEFEM KORZENIOWSKIM."
That's JOSEPH CONRAD, for those who are too lazy to obtain the work referenced before making inaccurate statements regarding so-called "broken citations." Exxess (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the self-styled Prokonsul rebut the following as not being notable, regarding the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family, as it would provide some clarity to his "black-is-white" argument this particular family is not notable. Two widely published works available worldwide have already NOTED the family. Jerzy Zdrada is a professor at the University of Jagielloński. Before someone too lazy to verify their statements before making them makes an assertion that that's a "broken citation," check here: http://www.uj.edu.pl/index.html
Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, states on page 9:
"Jarosław Radwan Żądło Dąbrowski urodził się 13 listopada 1836 roku w Żytomierzu na Wołyniu. Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności.""
Seems to me, as the family is specifically noted in a scholarly and widely published work, which I obtained from the Library of the University of California, Los Angeles, the family qualifies as being notable. I'd like to see the self-styled Prokonsul rebut that. I don't think it's possible, but given his logic, he might surprise me. Exxess (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family is yet again NOTED in a contemporary article available online by Adriano Sofri:
"La storia di un carcerato polacco vecchio e malato, discendente di una nobile famiglia di Varsavia, ..."
The article in Italian is in regards to a Victor Dombrowsky, related to Jaroslaw Dombrowsky (Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło). It seems to me, Prokonsul, the family is SPECIFICALLY noted in THREE SOURCES available WORLDWIDE in THREE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, nonetheless. How you can turn that into the family NOT being notable is hilarious and almost worthy of ridicule, as your contentions are ludicrous, objectively speaking, which is why I make a motion to have you personally BANNED from nominating, yet again, this article for deletion, which is simply an abuse of power in summary judgment fashion, and the matter seems to bother you personally, for reasons and motives of your own, which you need to clarify for the community. Exxess (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to discourage you, User Exxess (talk · contribs), especially that you're new to the game (a year and a half somewhat misleading) and estranged from our long-term contributors to Poland related subjects in English Wikipedia. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NPA principle to begin with. Anyhow, my concerns about your insufficient references still hold, in spite of your objections. For example, you provided a link to an Amazon.com advertisement of Historical Dictionary of Poland [1] which is NOT a reference by our standards. It is a spam-link, with anonymous reviews which don't count as reliable. What is needed is a link to a specific page in that book, with something to read. The same holds true about your spam-link to WorldCat.org advertisement of Jarosław Dąbrowski, 1836-1871 [2] by Jerzy Zdrada. There's a box on that page that reads: "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location." In other words, there's nothing there to support your assertions. Please, do your leg-work if you want to convince anybody! Do allow sources to speak for themselves, and don't forget to assume good faith on our part. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 18:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent, the worldcat link to Zdrada's book works PERFECTLY for me. I do NOT get "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location."
What are you talking about? Do you have Internet connectivity problems?
Secondly, my links are to SHOW YOU THE BOOKS EXIST, and my references HAVE PAGE NUMBERS. That's STANDARD IN BIBLIOGRAPHY. Do you understand? There is NOTHING to quote ONLINE from those sources. GO TO A LIBRARY AND GET THE BOOKS, TURN TO THE PAGE NUMBERS LISTED, AND READ FOR YOURSELF what the article ASSERTS. Your logic is little bit LOOPY, and you appear lazy.
Second, LET'S KEEP THE ARGUMENT FOCUSED. The so-called Prokonsul is NOT EVEN convinced by his own argument regarding notability and this family, as evidenced by his own statement:
Prokonsul -- "The family doesn't SEEM notable."; his key word being "SEEM."
Can ANYONE rebut the notability claims regarding this patently obvious notable family, just entered into the record as evidence, BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES? (Laughter.) I think this nomination for deletion on lack of notability claims is stupid, to be blunt, and the nomination for deletion should be deleted with extreme prejudice in summary judgment and execution fashion.
Also, for the record, this argument for me is more about the notability issue more than anything else. I think Prokonsul has made a not-very-intelligent assertion, and also made a claim upon which relief cannot be granted, the issue being notability, as the facts and evidence directly contradict his assertion. It's very hard arguing about something that for all intents and purposes is self-evident, regarding notability and this family. Prokonsul seems to want to qualify notability with a threshold that equates notability with extremely notable, a.k.a. "fame," or grandeur, something along those lines.
Reiterating Wikipedia on notability: 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'
THREE WIDELY-PUBLISHED, VERIFIABLE, AND AVAILABLE SOURCES have already NOTED the family. What more does Prokonsul require? I'd like to have him state his criteria.
THIS WE HAVE REGARDING THE FAMILY. -- '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.'
Regarding the above, several widely-available Polish armorials address the family exclusively and in detail, as does Professor Jerzy Zdrada. This family is not the Polish version of the Kennedy's, but that's hardly the point. They are self-evidently notable. Amaze me and rebut that.
THIS WE HAVE. I JUST ENTERED THE EVIDENCE. -- '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'
THIS WE HAVE. I JUST ENTERED THE EVIDENCE FROM THREE MULTIPLE SOURCES. -- '"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.'
THIS WE HAVE. I DID NOT WRITE THE REFERENCE SOURCES CITED. -- '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.'
THIS IS IN QUESTION. IN TERMS OF POLAND'S REVOLUTIONARY HISTORY, I THINK THE FAMILY IS NOTABLE AND SERVES AS A FINE EXEMPLAR OF POLAND'S PAST. -- '"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.'
I'd like to see Prokonsul's rebuttal, point-for-point. Exxess (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE:

thumb|left|690px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło

Exxess (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE. Is this what you require, Poeticbent? Were not the bibliographic citations enough?:

thumb|left|831px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło

Exxess (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE. Is this what you require, Poeticbent? Were not the bibliographic citations enough? Why am I getting the feeling particular people feel they OWN Poland Wikipedia? So far, MULTIPLE SOURCED, WIDELY AVAILABLE, and VERIFIABLE citations have been provided. There are more. Prokonsul, the family is self-evidently notable, and so far, no point-for-point rebuttal from you, yet, just VAGUE HUNCHES. Who is FOOLING who, now? Your deletion nomination is unjustified in the face of the evidence, as far as notability is concerned.:

thumb|left|488px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło

Exxess (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And YET ANOTHER WIDELY published source (http://www.sofri.org/dopotutto1510.html) mentioning THE FAMILY via its MEMBERS (quote: "una nobile famiglia di Varsavia, ..."). Whatever your REAL reasons for wanting this article deleted, Prokonsul, you surely need to come up with something less ludicrous than a notability challenge. As far as proving anything to Poeticbent concerning verifiability of sources and supporting specific data, I think that's been done more than adequately.:

thumb|left|1000px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło

Exxess (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep. I have been following this article for awhile and can not determine the source of controversy regarding this information. The citations are accurate and clearly establish the notability of the family. If the attacker has a personal or political reason to believe the information should not be documented on Wikipedia, then they should state their reasons. Reasons along those lines will probably not meet Wikipedia's policies for deletion, but that doesn't justify the false assertions of a DIFFERENT reason for deletion, just to get the article removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern876 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-out vote, above. Account Eastern876 (talk · contribs) has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite per WP:DUCK - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Exxess. — Poeticbent talk 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eastern876 is not me. This is nothing more than casting aspersions and resorting to the level of hearsay, due to considering an uncharitable rebuff an affront. I also see it's been established Poeticbent has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.
QUOTE: "Poeticbent
26) Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ([36]); his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ([37]).
Passed 8 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)"
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
Exxess (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain following vote, as this is not me, and the record reflects it's been established Poeticbent has treated Wikipedia as a battleground. Exxess (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep. I have been following this article for awhile and can not determine the source of controversy regarding this information. The citations are accurate and clearly establish the notability of the family. If the attacker has a personal or political reason to believe the information should not be documented on Wikipedia, then they should state their reasons. Reasons along those lines will probably not meet Wikipedia's policies for deletion, but that doesn't justify the false assertions of a DIFFERENT reason for deletion, just to get the article removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern876 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Struck !vote by fairly obvious sock/meat/etc. Black Kite 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus -- Irpen: "In such instances, Piotrus, if he can, prefers to act through proxies, inviting other editors to act and telling them exactly what to post and where to post it." I have a sneaking suspicion this is occurring in this deletion debate, and Piotrus/Prokonsul is motivated by some other agenda beyond what appears on the surface. This family is notable, and this deletion nomination is an arbitrary exercise of petty tyranny. Poeticbent made a ridiculous attempt at discrediting the reference sources; Piotrus/Prokonsul asserts a vague, ambiguous, and very lame contention of non-notability (false on the very surface of it), which he avoids arguing while hiding behind lame accusations of civility and NPA violations; and the remaining Delete votes have nothing to do with notability, the entire alleged basis for the deletion nomination, but are rather contentions the article is too "genealogical," or rather, the article is just not liked, pulling the matter into the realm of opinion. Wikipedia is to be free and open. Who is this Piotrus, and why is he an arbiter where this article's fate is concerned? Nothing he's written suggests he's any authority, particularly concerning the szlachta/Polish nobility. What qualifies his expertise? The litany of sneaky tactics Piotrus/Prokonsul employs is very revealing in the arbitration Requests against him. As I stated earlier, Piotrus/Prokonsul is a deft and insinuating hostile administrator, which is not saying anything but what appears in the arbitration requests against him. Exxess (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Given this -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 -- I think the record speaks for itself. Had I been aware of the Piotrus 2 arbitration, this page would not have been Piotrus 3. That particular struck vote above, I'm curious to see if it redeems itself. That is not me. That particular user will have to speak for themselves. I protest the striking of that vote. When counting the votes for a delete or keep on this article, that should be considered. Concerning this article, I think the issues have been adequately voiced, with justifiable force, in the face of hostile editing, particularly as the hostile administrator has implied and insinuated some type of illegitimacy. Prokonsul's words: "Don't be fooled by seeming plentiful refs:". Very judgmental words from the get-go, as if this article is making some attempt at fraud, or was inspired by bad motive and intent. If anything, every attempt has been made to be nothing less than forthright. The article itself does not concern me so much, as having to tolerate what has occurred here. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 for case-in-point and findings of fact. I see I'm not alone in my evaluations. That being said, I have no problems with being civil not equating to being charitable, friendly, or courteous (Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade). Concerning this article, same people, making the same redundant objections. I see no problems having an encyclopedic article concerning a family, particularly when the information is verifiable in widely-published sources. The real dispute is over what details are relevant. Details some feel are non-notable and irrelevant, others might consider highly notable and relevant. There's not an adequate level of detail concering Polish noble families on Wikipedia. Call it a bad understanding of Polish consanguinity. This family meets an objective standard of notability. Exxess (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: This is Piotrus/Prokonsul's second attempt of a deletion of this article based on nothing more than the fact that he does not like it. What is the primary plague is a hostile administrator who is evidencing the fact he will allow matters to escalate to a draw by 3-fold repetition, if necessary. The record establishes Piotrus is openly hostile. Encyclopedia content must be verifiable, which the contents of this article are. Again, hostile administrator.
QUOTE: "25.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ([35]).
Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)"
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
Exxess (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment:Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade -- "But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable." I thought a splash of that would clarify matters for Poeticbent, on the record as needing to be mentored (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2), who is casting aspersions by making bad-faith and false accusations, and my response is justified given I'm dealing with an established hostile administrator named Piotrus/Prokonsul who has repeatedly edit-warred (See above). Exxess (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Incidentally, now Poeticbent is accusing me of being Eastern876 and double-voting. I AM NOT Eastern876. This is called "casting aspersions," Poeticbent. Exxess (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is Prokonsul's SECOND attempt at deletion (his first failed a little over a year ago), which seems to be more about considering Wikipedia Poland his personal realm of proprietorship and pontification in regards to suitability, style, and subject matter a.k.a. Prokonsul and Lord of Wikipedia Poland. Poeticbent's assertions regarding source citations seem to be more a matter of sloppiness. He needs to read WP:CITE closely and with precision, as those guidelines have been clearly followed in the article's citations. I honestly cannot see any merit to his objections, but I've gone far above the burden of proof to meet his somewhat ridiculous objections. So far, no point-for-point rebuttals, just vague and ambiguous hunches about notability and citations, in the face of clearly adequate evidence to the contrary. I say this is more a matter of a hostile Prokonsul and Wikipedia administrator, which justifies my response. A third attempt at deletion will clearly demonstrate animosity on Prokonsul's part. Exxess (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - noble families are notable, especially those, that can trace their roots to the uradel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply disturbed by your wheel-warring Petri Krohn. For the second time you removed my {{Failed verification|date=January 2012}} tags without addressing systemic problems → meaning, that the links by user Exxess lead nowhere, with nothing to read at those specific webpages. This is not a value judgement about the books on my part, but a statement of fact. And so, I request that next time you familiarise yourself with WP:PROVEIT and WP:CIV before you revert my edits again. --Poeticbent talk 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The books cited are not available online. Surely you can see your assertion is logically fallacious. Explain how any web page could possibly have anything to read. I don't think you realize you're stating offline sources in the form of books are invalid on Wikipedia, which is patently ludicrous. I've read the books I cite. I've held them in my hands. And quit citing WP:CIV. I can cite, ad infinitum, Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade -- "But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable." You're being treated civilly, and you're using an unwarranted accusation of a policy voilation (WP:CIV) as shield to duck the real issue. -- Exxess (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent wants a link. Poeticbent gets a link. Click here: -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
I truly hope that's adequate to satisfy Poeticbent's demand for online availability. The family is notable and noted in widely-read, third-party, and verifiable sources. The offline sources, called books, expound on and amplify that information. -- Exxess (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should this article survive a second attempted deletion by Prokonsul, I make a motion for an estoppel where Prokonsul and his deletion nominations are concerned regarding this particular article. A third attempt would clearly demonstrate Wikipedia administrator hostility, petty tyrrany, and argumentativeness rather than merit. No point-for-point rebuttal from Prokonsul suggests otherwise. There must be an administrator with a higher rank than Prokonsul to petition for an estoppel regarding the frivolous deletion nomination attempts of this article. Notability contentions have been the basis of Prokonsul's unpersuasive argument, and notability claims have been amply satisfied. Exxess (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not shout or WRITE IN CAPITAL LETTERS! I had a hard time in turning all the book references in the article to lower case. If you want to emphasize something, do it by italics or by linking. As to the prokonsul, if you wanted to say something, you should have said it last week at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2. Today is not the best time to start Piotrus 3. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus -- Requests for arbitration. Laughter. That says IT ALL, er, it all (sorry). Thanks for the info. Exxess (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your technique of attempting to outshout your opponents does not convince. I, for one, do not have time to plow through all your verbiage. The presence of a notable individual in a family is not reason to create an article on the family. There are many other Polish families that may boast (a) notable member(s), but which will not have their own articles on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. Wikipedia is to be free and open. You're making a case for considering a topic off limits, which is extremely misguided on a site like Wikipedia. I want more articles on Wikipedia regarding families with notable members. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The information in this article is demonstrably so. No one is shouting. I just belligerently protest the assertion the family is not notable, as the evidence clearly makes its own case. Your logic makes no sense to me. Give an example of how one can discuss a family without discussing the members of the family. This family itself is notable. Reference upon reference notes them, some in specific detail, which I've provided. I've said this before on the first deletion attempt that I think articles on noble Polish families are justified where said families appear in widely published sources, and other Wikipedia articles make mention of them, and I find it frustrating when a notable Polish noble appears in an article, but there's no further background information on them in regards to their origins. Just because you do not find the subject of interest does not mean it's not of interest to someone else, and to presume otherwise seems to me to be the ultimate in arrogance. That's my point. Sorry if that seems harsh, but that's how these objections appear to me. There's no getting around it, but fundamentally this argument is really about a difference in taste, and that's no justification for a deletion. If you don't like the article, don't read it. The so-called lack-of-notability accusation has been conclusively squashed. If someone sees mention of this family in a widely-published source, this article provides more explication. All this was discussed in the first deletion attempt, which failed, and now the same redundant arguments are being made by the same people. It's bordering on petty harassment. Leave the information freely available. Exxess (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, Piotrus, a.k.a. Prokonsul, has repeatedly edit-warred, confirmed recently.
QUOTE: "25.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ([35]).
Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)"
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
I also see Piotrus, a.k.a. Prokonsul, has been recently urged, cautioned, and admonished. And I see Poeticbent needs to be mentored. Given that confirmed evidence, I would say this entire second deletion nomination is highly questionable, and Poeticbent's Strong Delete vote is suspect, meaning there is a question of the basic competence and judgment behind his objections, i.e., from Petri Krohn: "The given references are printed books, do not expect to be able to read them on worldcat.org or amazon.com!" Exxess (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to whoever may be interested, I am not exxess. I am an independent person who is unrelated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.41.48 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Please stop referring to Piotrus's arbcom case and/or past history, Exxess. Those are not in any way related to this AFD, whether you feel he has ulterior motives or not. Let the nomination run its course; you may comment if you want, but again, keep it relevant. Thank you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nom's cogent points, and creating an article on Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski might be a viable alternative. As for the display of ill-will that has disfigured this discussion, all I can do is grab a quote from the aforementioned Joseph Conrad: The horror! The horror! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote that "Hell is other people." -- Exxess (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (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/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144078902"