Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Czarnowski


 * 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 Speedy Keep. I speedy closed myself because its impossible for people to see this objectively given my past disputes with Elonka. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jan Czarnowski

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, no non-trivial 3rd party references exist. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wouldn't it be appropriate to solicit some sources for this first, before deleting it?  It tiny size makes it no different than many stubs, and this might be the only place one could find any data on this person.  I do not support deletion for triviality in this case (though I might in others).  But I think it reasonable to demand some sources. Unschool 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to find sources but found none. The article has existed since about a year now. I dont think there are any sources. This is simply a non-notable person. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is a notable person who we have no sources about - there's a difference. The offices he held make him notable, the issue is that we don't have the references to write a sourced article. That is definitely a problem but it does not make him non-notable. WjBscribe 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know he held the offices mentioned in the article? Do we go by "X put it in, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about", or do we follow WP:V? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You think its a hoax? WjBscribe 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Until we find reliable sources that support the claims, its all personal opinion or knowledge of individual editors. Put another way, its original research until we find sources. And since we cant find any sources, its non-notable. Did you find any sources? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources giving coverage are found.  I really do not think notability should be inherited in this case  Corpx 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article and others like it tend to suffer as a result of a systemic bias that results from these topics being covered in sources that are either not on the internet (i.e. in those things made of dead trees, particularly long-dead dead trees) and/or are in a language that does not have a large intersection with English speakers. Seeing as this article has existed for over a year but was only tagged with an "unreferenced" banner yesterday (which was then subsequently removed by the nominator when he posted this to AfD), enough time has not passed to give notice to find sources or to overcome the systemic bias related to those sources. I will re-tag the article as unreferenced, but I am withholding judgment as to whether or not this article should be kept or deleted for the time being. LaMenta3 05:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty clearly the "Papal Chamberlains" are not all notable (it is unclear how many there have been or may exist at any moment in time), and being head of a priory of an order is not the same thing as being head of the order. The "Polish nobleman" thing is reminiscent of the Szlachta problem in that although these are "nobility" they are as many as 1 in 8 Poles in historical times. Without more to go on this doesn't appear to be an important personage. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had arrived earlier, I would have speedy kept this as a bad faith nomination, so instead I am moving to close. This is an article Elonka has edited and considering we just came off a deletion discussion on Elonka's grandfather, it's ill-timed at best, and considering I've just stopped assuming good faith with this user in regards to Elonka, it's harassment of her work. As well, Matt57 has had a problem with going after Elonka's contributions (which has been noticed by multiple users and admins). At this point I really do not think any opinion he has toward anything Elonka has ever done can be taken any way other than with extreme malice. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, given the nominator's apparent history and interactions with Elonka, the faith behind the nomination here must be called into question regardless of the merits of the article (or lack thereof). The user has been warned several times to stay away from Elonka and the articles she has contributed to or edited. Given that he has not, this cannot possibly be seen as a good faith AFD nomination. --Core desat 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at Elonka's edit to this article, it is extremely minor and it happened more than a year ago. While there may be a history between these editors, I think it is stretching it to assume bad faith.  The AFD nomination is perfectly valid, as there appears to be no sources giving coverage to this person Corpx 07:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude here, but it's arguments like this that give Matt57 more ammunition to use to say he isn't going after Elonka with all his energies, when it's rather clear he is. Please review his contributions and his showdowns with Elonka; maybe then you will see that this is a continuing problem which has not been solved in any manner, with dispute resolution or with blocking or otherwise. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, please try to see this as a good faith nomination. Sure me and Elonka have had disputes in the past, but you can either see this as a bad faith nomination or you can see it objectively. But if this is causing some people to not be able to see this objectively, its no use and I wont nominate any problematic articles again. However, please let this nomination go by and see it objectively. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems valid to have this sort of info on Wiki, sources have been provided as requested. - Fosnez 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Source added is trivial. This is its (machine) English translation:
 * Yan Czarnowski with (from) freshly nominated maltese bachelor Rossochy, on request apparently konfratra, adm. Jerzy Zwierkowskiego11, then valuable range has transferred library of relationship (association) XVII, XVIII and with history of orders XIX -ETERNAL work related. There among others, they were magic enough, work unknown monastic bibliography Baudoina de and ( Naberata? Volume 1 ) de de ( Histoire des Chevaliers l’Ordre Malte, in paris in (to) 1629 issued < issue (seem) > ) in and Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers. In 7 -volume paris editing with (from) 1778 Vertota in octavo, as well as in (to) two de volumes la de Borcha Lettres sur Sicilie et l’ile Malthe in octavo, in (to) in (to) 178212 issued < issue (seem) > Turynie.
 * --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:50, 27 August 2007 (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.