Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogdan Gasiński

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. Consensus is that the subject meets notability. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bogdan Gasiński

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bogdan Gasiński (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)

I have serious doubts that the subject is notable (though the article is not a WP:HOAX as tagged). There are also problems with WP:OR; the current article uses as sources some wikisource documents and a Usenet transcript. I did find two in-depth articles about him in the Polish media, one in a reliable newspaper (but paywalled and I don't have access to this: [1]), and one in a niche portal ([2]) that is also at least half-WP:INTERVIEW. Overall, I think this article suffers from serious OR issues that can merit major gutting/WP:TNT, and coupled with WP:NOTNEWS poor coverage otherwise with its related NBIO/GNG issues, IMHO this falls into the 'delete' zone. Thoughts? Ping User:Stuartyeates who added the hoax concern tag. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There's a whole ton of allegations about living people here that need really substantial foundations, which they lack. Without the allegations, there is no coverage of the subject, because the allegations appear to be the sole source of potential notability for the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We do not create articles on a subject based on hearsay and other extremely weak sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Must disagree about weak sourcing and hearsay. Sources include two printed books and articles in reputable media. Other reputable sources, just added: Rzeczpospolita[3][4][5], Gazeta Wyborcza[6][7][8][9][10], Dziennik[11][12][13][14], Wprost[15]. At least 13 different articles from reputable sources. User:Piotrus, A) what was described as an article from a niche portal is actually from the Polish licensed edition of The Times; nto, which is not exactly a niche portal but a local print newspaper, published it simultaneously because they share the same owner and some staff. B) there are no usenet transcripts as standalone sources - but a source is a book, and as a trip to a Polish library in not an option for everyone, I supplied an excerpt posted on a newsgroup (deleted it because it looks as a poor source indeed; still viewable in history); C) WP:OR the wikisource document also happens to be quoted in full in Wiernikowska's book, so again just another source for the book's content. WP:BIO, WP:NOTE Gasiński was the source of a major parliamentary scandal in Poland in 2001. It was when the populist Lepper, speaking as a vice-marshal of the House, accused five particular MPs and ministers of taking bribes. It did cost him his parliamentary immunity. Lepper touted Gasiński as his source. Note that the slander cases are mentioned in the Wiki article about Lepper. Sources that Gasiński was the source of Lepper's claims: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27](all mentioned earlier). All of that does not establish Gasiński's truthfulness - but his notability, yes. Also WP:BIO, WP:NOTE one of Gasiński's absurd claims - that Afghan militants, using a helicopter, visited Klewki - was confirmed. Not an "unfounded allegation" anymore. See the article. WP:CRIME Gasiński's 38-year sentence is absolutely extraordinary, without precedence, and therefore notable. And yes, even considering it's for multiple crimes. It was all for non-violent crimes and animal cruelty, and Poland does not sentence people to that long for non-violent crimes. Living people and allegations about them: Makowski - his version is included in the article, even in the introduction, with his book as a source. Skowroński - became a fugitive with an official wanted notice. Łyżwiński - his court case was described accurately, sourced it now. Olechowski, Szmajdziński, Piskorski (plus Tusk, Cimoszewicz) - they won slander cases and the article will mention it, we can still remove their names. Others are dead. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Comment. Reviewing additional sources provided, it does seem that the subject may be notable; he did get written up in the news over several years, so it's not just a ONEVENT type of an issue. But I am still concerned about BLP issues/tone/focus, per User:Stuartyeates. PS. Ping User:Johnpacklambert the sources have been somewhat improved, the author has shown a good amount of coverage of the subject in mainstream Polish newspapers like Gazeta Wyborcza. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Quick recap of my arguments for keeping the article: notability: subject has been written about in at least 15 articles in the mainstream press (not tabloids) over the years, not just one time; also, he was the person behind a major parliamentary scandal; unusual sentence (WP:CRIME): the length of the sentence, 38 years for non-violent, non-drug crimes (and possibly animal cruelty), is unprecedented in Poland; also, the claim that Afghan militants in a helicopter had visited Klewki, pre-9/11, though sounding absurd, was later confirmed (and Gasiński's millionaire boss disappeared in the meantime). I believe the subject is, by far, notable enough to warrant an article. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Subject is notable. Sources are OK. And subject meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, major notable criminal case resolved in court.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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.