Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czesława Kwoka


 * 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. I realize this is early, but reading the talkpage of this article, there seems to be a very strong effort being put into this article, and the majority here says "keep" and ....do something with it. I'm not convinced that the article's title is correct, but also not convinced that the painting is the notable thing, or the painter, or if it was the redlinked photographer from Auschwitz, but there is definitely an article here. Ignoring all "time rules" and closing this so that work can continue. Keeper   76  14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Czesława Kwoka

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Sad story, but Wikipedia is not a memorial DimaG (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete One of six million or more Holocaust victims. No automatic notability if there is not substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison2 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete  deleting a Holocaust victim saddens me simply because of the subject matter but I'm not finding much of anything outside Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in Scholar or Books either. Sad, but we're not a memorial. TravellingCari  21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to weak keep per Eco's work. It's marginal but it's enough. TravellingCari  23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I found something -- admittedly, marginal, but something (and I paid to access it just to put it up here, too). I cannot, in good conscience, vote to delete this poor child from our pages.  Chalk it up to WP:IAR, if you want. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep because of the art thing and the National Geographic. Presumably they took her as an example - a representative - an illustration. That's enough. Fainites barley 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Ecoleetage. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to historical notability and fact that an artist and writer have created and composed paintings and verses pertaining to this subject. The sources attest to notability. The Wikipedia article is useful for those wanting to know more about this subject, which is of "encyclopedic" interest (in my view); one uses encyclopedia to learn reliable information about some subjects about which much is not well known otherwise; such subjects may seem not "well known" to people, but they may become better known as a result of well-sourced encyclopedic articles about them.  The subject is of historically-symbolic importance, as she represents millions of others like her whose very names may be lost (unlike hers).  (adding: in the spirit of "Never forget.") --NYScholar (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems to have improved since the nomination. Ostap 04:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article currently stands, the sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not all Holocaust victims are notable, but she seems notable as a subject of notable art piece which attracted awards and media attention. Perhaps the article should be combined/merged/renamed to that of an art piece? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Significantly more notable than the rest of the souls who perished in the Holocaust. If we churned through the hypothetical set of articles for all the victims at our current pace, we'd be done in about 260 years. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: After working on editing this article for a while, I have realized that the sources are not entirely reliable and/or verifiable. Please see Talk:Czesława Kwoka for my most-recent comments after searching for and failing to find any online version of [or reliable printed reference to] the National Geographic Magazine article being cited in a You Tube caption, which seems to have been moved into the early versions of this article (since edited).  --NYScholar (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but probably needs to be renamed to the name of the art work (and rewritten accordingly), since it's that that's notable rather than the person.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the basis only of this artwork's winning one prize, or being exhibited at one art gallery, or being featured in an online publication, I don't see it as a notable subject for an article in Wikipedia per se. Plenty of art works win prizes (multiple prizes) and are not considered notable enough for an article in Wikipedia.  My view is that if this person is herself not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, neither is the artwork based on a series of photographs of her.  What might be notable is the original series of photographs by the photographer in Auschwitz: Wilhelm Brasse, or that photographer/artist himself.  The artwork based on his series of photographs is a derivative work, and better mentioned, I believe, as part of a more notable article either on this little girl who died at 14 or Brasse. --NYScholar (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of information/query: What is the date of Brasse's series of photographs? When were they taken? --NYScholar (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (Clearly, they were taken during the victims' lifetimes at Auschwitz, which would be over 60 years ago, and they might be out of copyright (or not; needs checking). --NYScholar (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and move page As Piotus and Kotniski put it above. All Holocaust victims are certainly not of note and the girl herself is not notable for a biographical article but is notable because of the artwork. I would suggest moving it to an article on the artwork itself The Bald One       White cat 11:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Painting Czeslawa or similar, per Blofeld. Seems there's some notability here, but it's the artwork rather than the person that has it. ~ mazca  t 13:00, 28 August 2008 (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.