Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zbyszek Zalinski (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 delete. Tone 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zbyszek Zalinski[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)

5 years since the last no consensus AfD this hasn't improved and I see no new sources. Subject has no awards and coverage is limited to one interview and some mentions in passing. I don't think this is sufficient to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. Let's see if we can reach a consensus this time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And, indeed, per the arguments made in the original AfD. Namely that the only coverage that seems to be available, of which the subject is the primary topic, is the article in the Irish Examiner. A single article of this type doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. The other coverage, in which the subject is mentioned, is substantively about other topics, and the subject is largely just referred to in passing - together with other people working in media (like the Irish Independent piece, the CV style bios on rte.ie, etc.) The only mentions of the subject that I can find, since the original AfD, include this type of thing or this. Which is the type of general activity to be expected for someone working in media. But doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV or WP:FILMMAKER or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Disagree that WP:NOWORK is a good reason for deletion. However, in my WP:BEFORE I only see two sources giving significant coverage to the subject, both of which are interviews and as such of dubious independence from the subject (1 2). You'd think there'd be more, but absent that this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the article hasn't been improved since the first discussion is not a deletion criterion in and of itself — but what is more determinative is that the reason it hasn't been improved is because there aren't any genuinely solid sources to improve it with. Two of the three sources here are a primary source and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else, neither of which are support for notability — and while there is one source that's both reliable and non-trivially about him, even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one such source. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:14, 3 November 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.