Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Jerzy Minakowski

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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Jerzy Minakowski

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

I removed lot of unsourced content, and what remains does not show evidence of notability. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof with not a single cite on GS. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think there is one reason he is notable, and this is because in 2016 he received the Polish government award pl:Odznaka honorowa „Zasłużony dla Kultury Polskiej” (Honorary Award "Distinguished Service for Polish Culture", Decoration of Honor Meritorious for Polish Culture). It seems logical to assume that somebody who has been recognized by the government for distinguished cultural service is also notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen many articles nominated for quick closure but allowed to remain, which subsequently turned into worthwhile articles as more evidence came in. No need to rush to judgment. Nihil novi (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why should this article be kept? This should be determined by coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihil novi: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that other bad stuff may exist in Wikipedia does not hold water, Nihil novi. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per “keep" arguments above. I’m almost unsure so please, a weak keep.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because the award “Distinguished Service for Polish Culture” but I’m not sure about the other things, that’s why a weak keep but “keep”.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass any SNG (PROF is quite far fetched here, the medal doesn't amount to much - it is not a major award). Isn't close to passing GNG. The article itself is a mess, particularly the focus on coats of arms in his family. Founding/co-founding genlogical societes for his ancestors does not amount to much, nor does being a blogger or YouTuber. What we are missing is any semblance of WP:SIGCOV - which this subject quite simply does not have.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major award according to whom? You? Polish gov't seems to disagree. The awards are given by the Minister of Culture, the ceremony is mentioned on MoC website, where Minakowski and other recipients are called 'distinguished individuals' [1]. As for WP:PROF, he is mentioned (cited, described by something like 200 works according to Google Books), through he doesn't have much impact according to Google Scholar [2]. His books, while self-published, are held by several libraries ([3]). Lastly, his work and he himself have attracted coverage from major, mainstream Polish newspapers and magazines: Newsweek [4], GP [5] (on Polish-Jewish issues, btw), RP [6], he is occasionally cited in passing ([7]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he doesn't have much impact according to Google Scholar [8].!? I think you mean zero impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

As may be seen in Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland, the Polish government has a number of much more significant awards, than this ministerial level award, .Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the Daughters of the American Revolution can have a place on Wikipedia, then why not these sons and daughters of the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791, the world's second-oldest written national constitution? Nihil novi (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: Arguing that other stuff may exist in Wikipedia does not hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gnome (talk • contribs)

And being a member of the DAR doesn't count towards notability. Any woman who can prove her direct descent from someone who aided the cause of American independence qualifies. DAR members can be notable for other reasons, of course. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking notability. I'm sure that our fellow, Polish-speaking editors know the subject quite a lot. But that does not count for much. The subject is described in the article as a "philosopher" and a "historian" yet fails WP:ACADEMIC; as a "genealogist" but without any sources demonstrating notability in that line of work; as a "blogger" yet where are the sources to support at least WP:WEB; and as a "YouTuber", in which case where are the hits? -The Gnome (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the verge of weak keep but still the sources overall and a Google search indicates notability. The article needs a rewrite though when kept. BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2018 (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.