Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wincenty of Kielcza

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wincenty of Kielcza[edit]

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

Definitely existed, but nothing to show notability. There were several hits on the different search engines (scholar and books in particular), but all were brief mentions. Article has existed since 2007 without a single reference added. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Medieval and ancient historical figures can often be notable for accomplishments of enduring note, even though we often do not know things like where and in what year they were born.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wincenty and his works seem to be discussed in some detail in 19th-century journals, see for example [1]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Deletion of a Polish priest living in the 1200s for lack of extensive Google footprint is ludicrous. Inactivity rationale has no basis in deletion policy. There is no WP:deadline. Furthermore, a simple check on the Polish wiki page reveals plenty of references that the nominee could have added to improve the article instead of booting it. What an encyclopedic counterproductive nomination AccidentRecorder (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a citation to the article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of his creation of a major, significant work of literature: the first distinctly Polish hymn. Here's a source that can be added [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable as is evident from the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons listed above by others, and a quick search revealed there is more info available that can be used to expand this stub. I intend to work on it. Rockypedia (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2015 (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.