Talk:Adam Leszczyński

Notability tag
User:Buidhe, please don’t remove tags until concerns are addressed as you did here. Can you articulate which part of WP:ACADEMIC is satisfied?

The notability tag exists for a reason. If the only option was AfD, there’d be no rationale for the tag existing independently. So “then AfD it” is not a valid objection to the tag.  Volunteer Marek  06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you doubt the notability of the article, please feel free to go straight to AfD. Furthermore, it is not necessary for NPROF to be met, since there is GNG/NAUTHOR coverage here, but in this case "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." — per the cited sources his research is repeatedly discussed in depth in general handbooks. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the notability tag exists for a reason. It’s to give other editors a chance to establish the subject’s notability. If the tag is removed then that purpose is not served. So please don’t remove it.
 * As for notability itself, simply having one’s work cited is not sufficient to establish “significant impact”. Otherwise ALL academic would be notable. It is not true that Leszczynski’s work is “repeatedly discussed in depth in general handbooks”. His work is MENTIONED or briefly cited in the two handbooks given as sources. This is not sufficient coverage to establish “significant impact”.  Volunteer Marek   06:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say no case to answer here since I've already cited sufficient significant coverage in the article, per WP:GNG. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No you didn’t. You only cited the fact that he has been cited. EVERY academic is cited somewhere by someone. You claimed that there was “in depth discussion” in “handbooks” (“repeatedly” even!). But there isn’t.  Volunteer Marek   07:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you disagree AfD is thataway. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but that’s not a constructive reply.  Volunteer Marek   16:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you ignore the sources cited which clearly show notability, then I don't see how this dispute is going to be resolved otherwise. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We can start with you explaining how the handbooks provide “in depth” coverage of his works. Page numbers, paragraphs etc.  Volunteer Marek   16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. The notability tag does not say 'this article is not notable', it says 'this article may not be notable'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:REFBOMB
Regarding WP:REFBOMB. Could you explain what parts of the existing text these two sources you just reinstated suppose to support ? Thank you. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No content at the moment, but they include information that should be used to expand the article. If you insist, a "Further reading" section could be created, but deleting them outright removes references that would be helpful to an editor trying to expand the article. (t · c)  buidhe  16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Source #1 - "Adam Leszczyński presented a different, original albeit controversial approach."(Leszczyński mentioned in passing on page 44 only) What information should be used to expand the article from that source (for example)? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell from the preview, but I would assume that the source gives more information on his approach (the preview cuts off there) and he is also apparently mentioned on page 49. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, look, I'll restore the notability tag you removed twice already ,. In my opinion, this article doesn't meet notability guidelines. Please read WP:WTRMT and WP:WNTRMT. Please do not remove that tag until the notability issue has been adequately addressed. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella It's disruptive to continue to add a tag when it clearly meets notability guidelines, namely WP:NAUTHOR (multiple reviews of his books, if you are not persuaded by anything else). If you really don't think it's notable please settle it at AfD. (t · c)  buidhe  17:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, have you carefully read the help pages I linked for you in my previous comment? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella  Have you read WP:NAUTHOR? The real issue here is that all sources showing notability are disregarded. It's very frustrating. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read it. Look Buidhe, the notability tag isn't forever. Hopefully, if notability is established with other editors getting involved, I'll remove that label for you. How does this sound? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here I thought that notability was established by the sources, not by editor participation in discussion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the sources yet, but editorial judgement is necessary to validate whether the coverage in sources is sufficient. (Goes to look at sources). I am not impressed, although I keep saying our bar for notability of academic is too high. But as long as it is, I don't think this subject meets NPROF. Or NCRAETIVE or NBIO. I recommend taking this to AfD so we can get a proper discussion. PS. His book, Skok w nowoczesność, may be notable, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, publishing one notable book does not make the author notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Actually per WP:NAUTHOR (and in all AfD discussions that I have participated in) coverage of an author's books are counted as coverage of them personally. Otherwise it would be very difficult to write articles about any authors, most of whom are mostly known for their works. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think our experience differs. Which part of NAUTHOR do you think the subject passes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Usually "won significant critical attention" is interpreted to mean "reviews of their books, added together, pass GNG". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. We haven't even concluded that he authored a single notable book (it's still red-linked), so it's quite a stretch to say he is notable due to reviews (which have not been cited here in any impressive number). Two-three reviews of a single book don't make its author notable, not in my reading of NAUTHOR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well if you disagree I think the most productive method of resolving this debate is send to AfD and let consensus decide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll consider it after I have time to do a proper BEFORE. For now, I think the article warrants a notability since the sources / content don't clearly support subject's notability. AfD can be started if this is not addressed an an editor performs a BEFORE that yields negative outcome. The notability tag is an indication that this step should be taken. (Of course I assume you did said BEFORE and conclude the subject is notable, but I also assume User:GizzyCatBella has concerns over notability too so we have a 2:1 for keeping the tag for now?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)