Talk:Nadia Oleszczuk

Not important? plus no major achievements
Is it not too early for this person to have a bio in wikipedia? I do not see there many achievements. In the radio interview in Radio Zet, which was conducted by Beata Lubecka, Oleszczuk said that she became a member of Consultive Council because her boyfriend resigned from it. She became a member of this Council simply because she is a woman. Here you can find a link to the article in Polish citing her: - https://wpolityce.pl/polityka/525331-jaka-role-naprawde-ma-odegrac-rada-konsultacyjna This council is not very important either. She has no real major achievements. --Adam Lutostański (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an established process for this. See WP:Articles for deletion. However, articles are judged by the amount of coverage in reliable sources not one editor's subjective opinion of how important the subject is. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * being a member of a not significant council, as a replacement for her boyfriend, is not a significant life accomplishment. Definitely not enough to be in the encyclopedia (not encyclopedic). Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.109.92 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the clear problem here is that when even the right-wing polemicists are writing articles critical of Nadia Oleszczuk - as per Adam's example, above - they are at one and the same time fulfilling WP:GNG for Ms. Oleszczuk. Indeed, Adam's contribution of the wpolityce.pl article helps to cement the reason why she should have a wikipedia article; so, thanks for that, Adam. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are clearly wrong. The article in wpolityce.pl was written because people cannot believe that a person without any major achievements can have a bio at wikipedia. It's hilarious. It's not like encyclopedia, which wikipedia is, should work and look like. Will everybody have a bio at wikipedia now? Nothing will have to be achieved before that? Even construction workers or clean-up workers? There are many people like that, who took part in many demonstrations and protests; who worked even longer in restaurants and hotels than just for one day and don't have a page at wikipedia. She became a member of that Council because her boyfriend resigned from that and she is a woman. That's all! Really, you want to make such people famous? I do not care about her views. I do not object that people like Michał Boni or Barbara Labuda should have a bio in wikipedia even though they have a different worldview than mine. However, in my opinion, just being a member of this Council is not enough to have a bio at wikipedia.
 * Secondly, nobody will remember that such a Council existed after a month from now. Even today, after a week from the start od this protests, people are starting to forget it. For me, it is strange that out of the blue there appears a wikipedia article about her, as if she was an important person in an important Council. This article should be deleted immediately. In Polish wikipedia, it would be removed fast. Is it not strange that many of the members of that Council do not have a bio at Polish wikipedia? --Adam Lutostański (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for your concern about notability standards on en-wiki, Adam. I refer you, once again, to WP:GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism analysis
Should we keep this on bots + manual reverts for the moment, or switch to semi-protection? Given that Nadia Oleszczuk |Consultative_Council_(Poland)|Nadia_Oleszczuk|Dominika_Lasota|Kinga_%C5%81ozi%C5%84ska|Bo%C5%BCena_Przy%C5%82uska seems to be one of the most popular Constitutional Council members on en.Wikipedia, almost as popular as the protests page itself, and that the editing attention seems to be mostly by outright vandals from IPs, I would tend to go for semi-protection. This is a BLP, and in the situation in which dehumanising women is the issue of the protests itself, and we even have a blatantly sexist comment on the talk page, I think the case for semi-protection is strong. Boud (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * with misleading edit summary, fixed manually after 9 hours
 * by vague unsourced pejorative ("extreme", "dangerous") generalisation, fixed manually within 1 minute
 * , fixed after 5 minutes by ClueBot NG
 * , fixed manually within 5 minutes
 * , reverted within a minute by ClueBot NG
 * , I already requested at WP:RFPP. Let's see what the admins say. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been semi-protected by for two weeks. Once protection expires, we can re-visit perhaps a longer protection period if it is warranted. --    LuK3      (Talk)   14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete page of self-proclaimed activist.
Nadia is self-proclaimed activist. She took part in a ridiculous interview, in which it turns out that her knowledge and skills are extremely low, and she got the job after husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.130.96.218 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. She achieves notability under WP:GNG so I'm afraid that's not happening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think, also, self-proclamation kinda goes with being an activist. Difficult to see how one can be an activist without, in effect, proclaiming or demonstrating one's activism. So I think your objection also fails on that basis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with deleting the article. She has no reason to be the subject of an encyclopaedic arcicle, there are houndreds (or even more) of people like her and they don't have their own articles because on this basis, everyone should have an encyclopaedic article "just because". Moreover, this article is very badly written, has no encyclopaedic sense and is unfounded. It should be deleted due to lack of importance of this self-proclaimed activist for any modern history event, from the historical or even wider, hermeneutic point of view. And, the last thing, one rhetorical question: if she is so important to have an article on English Wikipedia, then, why there's no article on Polish Wikipedia? Maybe because sush encyclopaedic vandalism isn't tolerated on Polish Wikipedia? TheMichas (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "", Nicholas Klein, 15 May 1918, talking about how workers fought for their rights a century ago. We seem to be around the second to third stages; see WP:GNG. The modern equivalent is the Streisand effect. Boud (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)