Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Łaski


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. GiantSnowman 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Albert Łaski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. The original rationale was "No evidence of notability; minimal sources available, and I cannot see any that cover the subject in great detail" which, despite some minor improvements to the article, remains valid. GiantSnowman 16:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Polish Wikipedia article is detailed and has some sources.  The Google machine translation is here, for whatever it's worth: . Will wait for comment from someone who can actually read Polish and comment on that content and sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I fully symathise with the lack of rationale for contesting the WP:PROD tag, because notability is so blindingly obvious from a simple Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence it then. GiantSnowman 14:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop embarrasing yourself like this and withdraw the nomination. When you nominated the article for AfD it already had a reference to a whole book about Łaski, and even when you PRODded it it had a reference to a web site that, although itself self-published, cited three cast-iron reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, if sources are so readily available, then feel free to add them to the article to improve it, and I'll then happily withdraw this AFD. As it stands, I will not. GiantSnowman 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read my last comment? There is a reference to a whole book about Łaski already in the article. Got that? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great. How do we know it's not a 2 page pamphlet which mentions him (in passing) once, as opposed to a 600-page biography? You seem to enjoy removing PRODs/challenging AfDs without ever improving the article(s) in question, quite a feat. GiantSnowman 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is completely untrue, and unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin. Take it back. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We know what type of book this is in the standard way, by following the ISBN link from the citation. And we know that it doesn't just have a passing mention of Łaski from the very fucking title. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your swearing is unbecoming of any editor. Take it back. GiantSnowman 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My words were a totally appropriate response to your obtuseness and unwillingness to look at the evidence. I will not take them back. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. I've responded on your talk page rather than us disrupting this AFD any further. GiantSnowman 15:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Only AGF prevents me from wondering whether this is a vexatious deletion. Clearly Łaski has an entry in both Polish and Roumanian Wikipedia, secondly having added more material I feel it was a Giant mistake for Snowman to pursue this. In fact anyone with a passing knowledge of Renaissance hermeticism would know that Łaski was important if for no other reason than that he persuaded John Dee to visit Poland. He was also tied up with the family of love, a significant international mystical association. Also there's several pictures of him in commons.Leutha (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, kudos on the complete lack of AGF there! I'll admit that I have zero knowledge of 'Renaissance hermeticism', whatever the hell that is, but describing my nomination as "vexatious" (which is precisely what you have done, whether or not you put 'AGF' in the same sentence or not) when I PRODded an article that looked like this and AFDed one that looked like this, after failing to find any sources, is extremely poor form. GiantSnowman 20:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you AFDed an article that had a reference to a 234-page biography of the subject. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but am just as sure that you did so with gross incomptetence. And what analysis of the thousands of Google Books results led you not to find any sources? Why don't you just stop digging? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.