Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksander Piotr Mohl


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Aleksander Piotr Mohl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a WP:OR outcome of some family research project. A mid-ranking official of a Polish government, he never held a position that would make him notable by its virtue. He received some medals and awards, and seems to have been mentioned in passing in some books (such as diplomatic memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz), but I have doubts that sufficient for notability. Searches for "Aleksander Mohl" 1899 1954 produce nothing but basic DOB/DOD on some genealigy websites. Majority of the content in the article is unsourced, and likely based on family documents (the unsourced part includes the listing of medals and awards, which is the only pro-notability argument I see). NOTGENEALOGY. PS. The subject should not be confused with Aleksander Mohl (1864-1913) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I trust Piotrus' judgement on this one. The awards would make him notable, but he has not done anything to earn them (no more prominent positions or achievements) so I would suspect they are not actually his. Agree that this seems like a family genealogy project. Renata (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - the creating user in question of this new article is a newbie, and claims to have more sources - . Give him a chance to present them.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - I'm not sure here, but endorse giving the author a bit more time. I've added to sources, Piotrowski 2004 p 61 and Rojek 2000 p 515 which briefly cover Mohl's career in a footnote and index, respectively (I only see snippet view of either). These two bits alone give enough information that the substantive parts of Mohl's career discussed in the article pass WP:V. In the index of Rojek 2000, it says Mohl is discussed on 5 pages. Looking for snippets from those pages, Mohl seems to be a significant character in the story being woven, for instance on page 199, the snippet involving Mohl talks about Mohl's playing at least a substantive if small role in advising those involved in recovering Poland's gold reserves. So my guess based on Rojek 2000 is that Mohl passes WP:RS/WP:N, at least for a single source (and it would be a surprise if more sources didn't exist, given the comparative paucity of Polish sources online). That said, there are definitely some WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues in how the article is currently written. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed weak from my !vote to reflect the increase in sources found. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep understands the problem very accurately. The problem is that there are very few sources in English, most are in Polish. Thereby the paupacity of online sources. I have his military record from the Polish Military Center, but there is no way to patch unto Wikipedia. I have articles written, again very old ones and cant be sourced today. I agree he was a mid ranking diplomat, but he did get the awards, These are clearly shown in the NAC Polish archive photos. I am trying to rectify the situation of very few Polish Personality entries. Trying to put these people accesible to English reading researchers. Trying to have Wikipedia have more reach...If you dont like what I am doing..go ahead and delete them....Also very different perspeective from an Anglo saxon perspective than Polish one...For the Poles Alexander was a personality...so perhaps Wikipedia is meant to have a narrow only anglo saxon perspective. I thought I was helping the Poles and Wikipedia..I certainly dont mean to put so much effort on things that you easily and quickly delete.. Change the format and have a way to suggest entries you can brush off ..BEFORE doing the work--Gzegosh (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point is that it is very hard to find information on Polish diplomats. What wasnt destroyed in the total destruction of Warsaw, center of Polish archives, was later destroyed by the Soviet backed Polish government. A case in point are the archives at the Polish Embassy in Paris. Nothing remains of those records. Alexanders military records are the best and most complete information, besides all his education, and military recommendations and activities until 1930, there is also a CV in Alexanders handwriting about his life.--Gzegosh (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Gzegosh, I've taken the liberty of formatting your reply so it doesn't break the visual flow of the discussion. I am totally fine with giving you more time, and the sources found by Smmurphy are promising - having a bio summary in the footnote, which I can see on p.515, is good. Your goal to write more about Polish people is welcome, but you should try to include such references in the article as soon as possible to avoid deletion discussions. Poorly sourced content ends up in deletion discussions (per WP:V/WP:N/WP:OR and related policies). Please don't get too upset, but realize that if you publish your article in the main space instead of draft, you are explicitly asking others to review your work, and if it is unfinished or has other problems like poor referencing, this will get pointed out. Do note that Polish-language sources (or any other language) are welcome on English Wikipedia, you are not limited to English sources. Sources from PMC and 'articles' you mention (presumably from old newspapers?) can be cited; anything can be cited - please provide publication data, author, publisher, title, whatever is available. If documents are not copyrighted, you can scan them and upload to Wikimedia Commons. However, some sources, like family documents or subject's CVs, do not convey notability. It is not the place of Wikipedia to publish original research and make cases that some topics should get more coverage. If scholars etc. have not written about a subject, it is hard make the case we should. Fortunately, sources like Rojek's etc. can be helpful in this case. Hopefully you can obtain the copy of his book and use it to properly source the article. PS. Regarding the awards, you have to be much more clear about how we can identify them from the mentioned photos. If you are saying that you can identify the awards from the black and white, well... this is getting us very close to WP:OR. At the very least, I'd expect you to provide a clear description of which medal we see on the picture corresponds to which award. But generally, we don't accept photographs as sources to be interpreted by our editors, what we accept is published historian analysis of them, or better, a published document stating said facts. Do you have any document that states, in words, not pictures, what awards he received? PPS. Since we have found a likely good source (Rojek), I think this nom could be withdrawn: ping User:Renata3 - do you think the biographical footnote and presumed discussion over several pages would be sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - short mention here - (page 295). I've also seen him mentioned Alexander (in a 2016 polish newsletter and also contemporary western sources). I've also found this -  - specifically page 59 discusses Mohl's (and his wife's), umm, exploits and arrival to US. Additional mention - . Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - I think he's notable. The article needs to be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC). To Keep, as apparently source of a major US war plan leak to the Abwehr. Seems he was serving in an important intelligence capacity if he was talking to head Office of Strategic Services William J. Donovan.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable for stand alone article. It does not say he was the "source of a major US war plan leak", but only "mentioned as a possible source"; that means nothing. Reads like a family newsletter. WP:Memorial also applies. Kierzek (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's polish language sources too - 2 book sources: Rojek, Piotrowski - are significant but not available online (but from snippet view of index - he is in a few pages in both books). Regarding the Donovan leak - most sources don't pin this on him (he might have) - but do pin this on the wide-ranging strategic conversation between Mohl and Donovan that was leaked by someone (unknown). One source goes as far as to label him as "the Polish secret service chief  - which I'm not sure is correct, but reading between the lines (diplomatic position, posting, political affiliation, and him being high-up enough to go back and forth between Lisbon and Washington and have talks on overall allied strategy with the OSS chief) - even if he wasn't #1, he was high-up. Sources on significant intelligence figures, and particularly Polish WWII figures (who figured very highly in the allied intel scene - but were PR-wise behind the scene and downplayed afterwards), are more scant than other topic areas.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources seem pretty loose. I can appreciate that he lived a while ago, but nevertheless, it is clear that a lot of the information required to pass WP:GNG is either trivial or speculation. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  23:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The subject clearly passes WP:MILPEOPLE. The article needs work/improvement; not a nomination in AfD. For the OR, we have original reasearch tag. Sources need to be found/translated. Looking at subject's activity period, it is understandable if a lot of sources are not available in "online format". One should change preferences in their search engine, and look for more sources from different languages including Polish. Given that he passes notabilty criteria (WP:MILPEOPLE), and the article was created on June 11, the article should be given a little time to be improved. The article is not a failure on notability criteria, it has issues with OR, and sources. That should be worked on. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please review last edits and add interesting find regarding Alexanders relationship with Goering before the war. --Gzegosh (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In good-faith; I formatted, and fixed the comment above. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The author has requested some extra time to work on the article and hopefully improve the sourcing which I am happy to accord since this discussion has not been relisted before and we don't have a consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would withdraw this nom but there is still no source for what I think is the biggest notability claim - most awards. For example Cross of Merit (Poland) is on the level it likely makes the subject notable, but - we need a proof for it beyond a blurry photo (I am afraid interpreting the photo as editors would make us violate WP:OR). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "break all the rules". OR in general is other thing. But anything for saving an article is different. — usernamekiran (talk)  13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree most of the medals require better sourcing (the Order of the Cross of the Eagle is sourced - received in 1934 - as per Estonian government website) - he meets notability without them. The Polish - given that they might've been awarded by the Government in Exile would be difficult to source (not impossible - just a mess). I would like to see sources for these, but he meets SIGCOV, and his intelligence position makes him pass on WP:MILPEOPLE (including one source claiming he was "the Polish secret service chief - not sure if that's true, but clearly obvious he was high up if he was meeting OSS chief Donovan for in-depth strategy meetings). I think the AFD should be closed as keep. Some of the medals - the French and Belgian for instance - should be easier to source (I think!) than the Polish.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:03, 29 June 2017 (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.