Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cezary Paszkowski


 * 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cezary Paszkowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC notability. The few reliable sources merely make passing mention of the subject. - MrX 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Serial deprodded without explanation by apparent sock/vandal - clearly fails WP:GNG; awards do not appear significant - encyclopedic notability is not demonstrated. One can have exhibitions and win awards without having encyclopedic notability.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am neither a sockpuppet nor a vandal. Please strike that statement from your explanation. Thank you, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Never happen. IF you had meant good faith with the PROD deletion, you would have registered a valid keep vote here. I think you need a comb; you might want to see about that hair.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No rush The guy appears to be notable in Poland as a graphic artist - there are several legit-appearing refs via Google, but I do not read Polish.  And removing a PROD is not "vandalism" here as far as I can tell. I think we should find someone who can look up the person in Polish sources before we obliviate him. Collect (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC) see Polish Wikipedia   and the assertion that he holds the title f "professor" which means that is also grounds for notability Collect (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - See this discussion regarding the vandalism of removing this prod tag. This particular sock is discussed in the second bullet point.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And?  An AfD discussion is supposed to be about the article at hand, and not about who any editor is, or whether removal of a PROD is ipso facto "vandalism."   The IP is not called a sock by the blocking admin, by the way, so might you tell us the concrete evidence that the IP is a "sock"? SPI results? Collect (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. My purpose was merely to give you information regarding this editor, and was in response to your comment that removing a prod is not vandalism. The blocking admin does use the terminology "This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny", which is pretty much the description of a sock. Furthermore, later in the discussion, the same blocking editor does state, "There is a good chance that all of this was done as a bit of a smokescreen. I believe that it is quite likely that pet articles of sock[']s had been prodded..." And the discussion clearly came to the conclusion that in this instance, removing this prod (along with others), was vandalism/non-constructive editing. Regardless, no big deal, was just trying to give you some info. Take it easy.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and vanity; article was created by a new user who has done nothing else. Also, agree that deprodding as noted is sketchy. MiracleMat (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. Setting aside Polish Wikipedia different notability criteria (all professors are seen as notable there), what sources do I find? Local Polish portal has a brief info about his and his wives exhibition at the National Museum, Gdańsk . This may meet WP:ARTIST 4b. His work was briefly mentioned in mainstream Polish newspaper, but it probably doesn't count for in-depth. He also seems to collect reviews of his work at , but sadly, without proper bibliographical references. Still, they have titles and authors, and are thus treacable, for example I traced a longer review by art critic pl:Jacek Kotlica to , which is described at  as a publication (seems short lived and offline), published by the Gdańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Sztuki (Gdansk Society of Friends of Arts), a local NGO. I wasn't able to trace two others, however. I did, however, find one decent book reference.  is crippled by snippet-only view, But on p.24 I got lucky with what is at least a paragraph in English about his work: "Cezary Paszkowski was eminent in the generation of the seventies. His creative work is faithful to th workshop priniples of his masters - Zukowski and Karofak. He began his create wandering from the realization of etchings..." Not sure how long this entry is; if it was half a page or longer, it would probably be good enough for to be considered a pretty good source. As it is, it's borderline, but I am leaning towards keeping. Ping User:ScrapIronIV, User:Collect, User:MiracleMat - what do you think about those sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Piotrus and museums and exhibitions. Modern printmakers don't get much internet coverage. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Piotrus. clpo13(talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (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.