Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Florczyk

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Florczyk[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Wisnie26, with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). The creator added some more external links, but I do not see how they help. As I noted, the only coverage of the subject (his work, etc.) I found was from an exhibition at a regional Polish library's webpage. Not counting a things like homepages and articles by subject, external links now also contain an interview in a website (Broadsided Press) that seems half ngo/half publishing house ([1]), another interview published in a blog-like magazine ([2]), and [3], which seems at least half written by the subject. I just don't see how anything here, even added together, help with WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotr. Thank you for your comments on the Piotr Florczyk entry. Please allow me to justify the entry. When posting the entry, I did not intend to write a biography of this person. Instead, Florczyk (under Wikipedia guidelines) is viewed as "notable" because of his literary contributions, especially in the area of translation, which connects him to numerous other notable figures in Poland and the United States. Because of this sort of contribution, like hundreds of other entries long established on Wikipedia listed as "academics" and "creative professionals", secondary criticism of Florczyk's is irrelevant. It is true that some of the external links are not "independent", but others are reliable and offer significant coverage.

I am new to writing Wikipedia entries, and would appreciate your assistance in making this what you deem more worthy. The intention of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is a collective adding, contributing, and sharing. Thanks, [[User:Wisnie26 9:47 28, April 2016 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisnie26 (talk • contribs)

Dear User:Wisnie26. The intention of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. Articles about people should be biographical ones. They need to meet certain requirements: see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. As well as WP:What Wikipedia is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment, there doesn't seem to be enough independent and reliable sources for pass WP:GNG. Piotrus has correctly pointed out that the 3 links with a bit more coverage are not independent reliable sources; they seem like publisher affiliated blogs to me. I could try applying the more specific WP:AUTHOR criteria here, but unfortunately none of them is satisfied here as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable for the needed solidity, I waited until commenting here for others to say something else instead, but the article is still questionable with nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 13 May 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.