Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Kanty Zamoyski


 * 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. Three relists and decent arguments on all sides. Can't find a consensus here either way (del, keep, merge). Daniel (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Jan Kanty Zamoyski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY in every respect Smerus (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete an article on an exciled notable who did nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Keep: No evidence of notability. Very poor sourcing, possible hoax too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)  PS. Changing to walk delete per sources fond by LU below. Would be also nice if a Spanish Wikipedian could comment on whether any orders the subject received (mentioned in their Spanish biography) could be sufficiently high-level to grant notability? Particularly the Grand Cross of Order of Charles III seems to be on the more significant side. Also, if this is kept, here is a picture from his wedding, likely PD, and here is a movie . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. Changed to keep as I have concluded that this order meets ANYBIO #1.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Weak keep I have found several mentions here, here and here that seems to e reliable sources, however they mostly only mention about the marriage. I don't think he is notable apart from that.Less Unless (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC) ps: have changed my vote to weak keep after the order information was found.Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After reviewing it again, I would like to hear people's thought about whether the GC of Order of Charless III (linked above) would be enough to grant the subject auto-notability or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see why the receipt of an order in itself makes the recipient WP:NOTABLE, unless it was awarded for some action or circumstance which was notable. In this case, this particualr order seems to have been distributed mre or less wholesale in the 20th ceentury and he seems to have got it either for being rich or for having married into the Bourbon-Two Sicilies family - neither of which count as WP:NOTABLE in themselves.--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * * I think this particular order is not an evidence of notability. We should take into account what the order is given for. Some orders are assigned automatically to nobles or royal family members and don't require any other achievements whereas others need something to actually be done. Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right, but we can't assume this is the case. Cynicism aside, most orders and such should be given for merit, that's how "it is supposed to be". And the order discussed here is described as ' the most distinguished civil award that can be granted in Spain' and the subject received 2nd class (out of 5). It seems pretty significant to me. The more I think about it the more I learn towards concluding that this order is sufficient for establishing notability (WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After taking a closer look I am inclining to agree with you on this Order. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment we need sources that cover a person's life in detail, that is still lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: ... I'm citing User:Bearian here, on nobility and notability: There are two ways nobility or royalty can become notable in the 21st century: (a) being involved in major scandals and/or (b) being the patrons of notable philanthropies. Having one's picture taken with some people of ill repute is not enough, nor is a one-time socialite dinner. Examples of major scandals would be an sexual affair or financial corruption that gets significant coverage. Examples of patronage of charities would have to show the person is a guest of honour, or has made a significant donation of art or the equivalent of millions of dollars of donations, preferably over a number of years. Op Cit, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , But this person is from the 20th, not 21st, century. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise he was born in 1900. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is an interesting and borderline case. I found a few online sources: a story about his relationship to Juan Carlos I, and more here. That relationship as cousins-in-law is described here. There's a story about what appears to be Poland-Argentina bilateral relations here. So he's basically an in-law of the current Spanish royal family, and a minor noble of the deposed Polish kingdom. I'm not sure that's enough for me. I do not see any evidence beyond the one diplomatic effort, of any independent notability. As we have done many times, I would prefer a merger and redirect in this instance to the spouse's page. I would also ask for the courtesy to be able to take the sources that we have found and add them to that merged article. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last relisting, since the disagreements are varied and marginal
 * Keep per the sources presented above. Luciapop (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2021 (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.