Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Łobaczewski


 * 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   merge to Ponerology. (non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrzej Łobaczewski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Only sources a fringe site and one of his books. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is a stub and should be marked as such, but the subject of the article is a noted Polish psychiatrist. If a Polish speaking editor wanted to look at this, they could probably resolve the source issue fairly quickly.  A quick search turns up academic papers as well, though again they are not in my native language.Christopher Lotito (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I too searched using Google and on the Polish WP but found nothing to support notability. Having written papers proves nothing, especially for a fringe author: even if published that could have been by a fringe publisher not considered a reliable source.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and/or merge to/with ponerology. Looking around, I'm seeing several citations, discussions, and reviews of his book Political Ponerology, but no one of them is particularly stellar. I imagine this may be in part because of a language barrier, but there's visible to me to merit a weak keep. Doesn't seem like it merits two articles, though. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero cites on Google scholar. Can anything else be found? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Merge and redirect. Oddly the ponerology article and this one do not cross-cite. I agree with User:Rhododendrites. Furthermore, subject was effectively the spokesperson of a group of researchers who were hiding from communist persecution, rather than the outright author. More, which could be built into the merged article, here: [].Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (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.