Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Tomaszewski


 * 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 defaulting to keep. Despite numbers, I'm not comfortable enough with the strength of arguments on either side to close as straight keep. It is worth noting that comments in the last relist block mention that there could be more sources out there that are harder to find - not English or not online - which could push it firmly onto the keep side, but without them, it's hard to know for sure. ansh 666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Irene Tomaszewski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nominator. She has a great personal story, but the reliable source coverage just isn't there. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per my comment above. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, she doesn't appear to satisfy GNG or AUTHOR, and I was unable to find good sources. In fact, none of the sources cited could be treated as independent, thus precluding any notability-conferring weight. When searching, I did find four mentions in The News-Item, but mostly trivial coverage. BEFORE found nothing else. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment : Unless I miss my mark, there is no article on this subject in the Polish-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Irene Tomaszewski is cited on the Polish Wikipedia in "Lista polskich miast zniszczonych podczas II wojny światowej" ("List of Polish cities destroyed in World War II"), "Krystyna Skarbek" ("Krystyna Skarbek"), "Edward Kemnitz" ("Edward Kemnitz"), and "Polish American Historical Association" ("Polish American Historical Association").  Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references here are doing nothing to establish her notability at all — they're all either primary sources, or pieces of her own writing. But a person does not get over WP:GNG by being the author of reliable source coverage of other things; she gets over GNG by being the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. The sources here simply aren't cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Borderline passes WP:NAUTHOR - has authored several books, including in English, and they are being cited (just click Google Scholar link at the top of the AfD). Few dozen citations in total, according to GScholar. Borderline, yes, but I lean on the inclusionist side here. PS. The article creator has not been notified of this AFD, a technical oversight that should require relisting after the notification. PPS. Since the author is currently topic banned from commenting here, if this is deleted, I will pre-emptively ask on their behalf to userfy it for them in their userspace so they have an option to improve it in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once  - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am leaning on the inclusionist side here. This is very borderline, hence my 'weak' vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I came very close to calling this a no consensus, but let's see if a relist helps.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep established author. Passed and WP:NAUTHOR and subsequently WP:BIO. Some author are not that social. scope_creep (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This author's book on Zegota is extensively cited. For example, Children during the Holocaust by Patricia Heberer, published for the USHMM, series editor Jurgen Matthaus. Tomaszewski edits The Cosmopoltan Review, a respected online journal with contributions from professional historians: http://cosmopolitanreview.com/about-us/Tatzref (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, for the reasons adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:AUTHOR with one book, which did not receive substantive third-party reviews (or at least I could not find any). The book being cited does not help notability, as we'd need discussion of the book, not citations. Cosmopolitan Review appears to be a nn publication, so being an editor does not help either. Bottom line, there's insufficient coverage of the subject to sustain this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Well established authors of books and articles that are well cited-easily meets WP:AUTHOR. There is ample information about her in reliable sources to make an informative biographical article. Much of her career was well before the internet so her online profile is going to be different that what is commonly seen today. She's doesn't appear to be someone who sought out lifestyle vanity type newspaper pieces. Yet some autobiographic content about her is found in articles that she's written in reliable sources which shows publishes have an interest in her life so also meets GNG. All of these together make it easy for me to say keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: established authors of books and articles that are well cited... is a criteria applied to academics, under WP:PROF. The subject does not meet this guideline, and being cited does not easily meet WP:AUTHOR. For WP:AUTHOR, we'd need substantive third-party reviews, which I missing in this case. If they exist, I would be happy to review them. I was not able to find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Following up on 's above comment, I've found at least one review through JSTOR for Tomaszewski's translation of Krystyna Wituska's letters, (I believe the JSTOR number is 25779130), and I see multiple cites in JSTOR that Google Scholar isn't picking up (including Andrew Jakubowicz and John J. Kulczycki), as well as a record here in EBSCO which suggests there are more sources that may not be immediately accessible, but should be enough to pass the notability threshold. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets NAuthor. The sources for her are there, with several book reviews among them. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Ideally for an author you'd like to have at least one published book with enough notability to have its own article - I don't see that either. Her interesting prison camp backstory suggests that there should be some media interest, like with Irène Némirovsky, and I just don't see that. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.