Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustaw Marek Brzezin (2nd nomination)

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. per snow closure. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaw Marek Brzezin[edit]

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

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

I was going to BLP Prod this page as the only reference to this individual is to this politician's own website but this has already made one trip to AfD three years ago and I'm sending it back for reconsideration. I don't think a personal website is a reliable source. This person might be notable but over the years, no editor has decided to spend time to beef up this stub. As I don't speak Polish, I have no ability to search for Polish sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you aren't sure whether an AfD nomination is appropriate, you can ask at the appropriate WikiProject talk page, such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Poland. The Polish Wikipedia article on this person has plenty of good references that establish notability, and I have added them to the English article. I don't read Polish, but I can use Google Translate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad sourcing is not a problem unless there are contentious claims which could be removed (per WP:BLP). As an individual, he likely passes WP:NPOL (voivodeship marshal). This article needs copyediting but not WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the sourcing is bad - stub it down to the current lede which should be easy to source "Gustaw Marek Brzezin (born July 13, 1958 in Ostróda is an agronomist and Polish Peasants' Party politician. He is the Voivodeship marshal of Warmia-Masuria.. Being a Voivodeship marshal of a Voivodeship with some 1.4 million residents would seem to pass WP:NPOL by quite a bit. Google news comes up with quite a few hits - hard to see how he doesn't pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Voivodeship marshal is quite a high rank for a politician, similar to a governor of a U.S. state or Minister-President of German Länder.--Darwinek (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Voivodeship marshal seems passes WP:NPOL, only needs bad sourcing improvement --SalmanZ (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for reference improvement if necessary. The voivodeship marshal is a genuinely major and important political role at Poland's equivalent of the state/provincial government level, so it is a role that should quite properly satisfy WP:NPOL. Yes, the English Wikipedia often has a problem with our coverage of topics that aren't prominent in English-language media, because the need to depend on Polish-language sourcing for Polish politicians significantly reduces the number of editors who have the language skills to actually do anything about it — but we ultimately judge notability by the existence of suitable sources, not by how many of them are already present in the current version of the article, and at any rate the article has already been expanded to import the content and sourcing from the Polish version. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I figure that a Voivodeship marshal is notable so much as those governors back in the USA are. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (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.