Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Potaski


 * 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 Despite the length of the discussion, there have been only four named participants (Bleakcomb, Anoldtreeok, Ret.Prof and Jenks24), and a few comments and keep comments from IPs (one !voted twice). After improvements were made to address some of the objections, and the article was relisted, the opinion from the registered users was that the additional sources made the article worthy of keeping. Mandsford 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Potaski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Clear claim of notability remains unclear. Claims are not all supported by sources. Query reliablity of Cahill sources. Tipping and Paszkowski may support notability, but I don't have access to them. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Further, as Cahill states in "He had floated like flotsam on the waves of an unkind history. Whilst there is nothing great about his life, his progeny have become honourable and contributing citizens of the Australian Commonwealth." So, he was not particularly notable but his descendants may have been. Cahill also says "and there is disagreement about his birth details" Nothing is cited that firmly indicates he is Polish. John Fawkner as an eleven year old witness reports that Potaski claimed he was Polish. Nothing at all indicates he is Jewish. The Calcutta sailed to Port Philip, but not to van Dieman's Land. The Ocean made two journeys from Port Philip to Hobart. On which trip did Potaski and his family travel? You would want to be on the first ferry journey to among the first convicts to land in Hobart. Even earlier, Bowen took 21 convicts to Risdon Cove in September 1803.

The Cahill papers appear to be published only as paper to a Polish diaspora conference in 2003, where it appears unedited, "Earlier on, John Fawkner, the co-founder with John Batman of Melbourne much later, had travelled with him in 1804 as the eleven-year son of a convict on the boat to Tasmania as an eleven year-old and clearly knew him, as we shall see, quite well as a fellow member of the small colony of Van Dieman’s Land." I would question the amount of verification and peer review that this information has had prior to its publication in conference papers and hence its reliability. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also doubt the subject's notability. An editor continues to remove the notable tag from the multiple issues template, but I have yet to see any evidence that he is really all that notable. I originally marked it for deletion when the article was first created, but let it stay a bit longer as it looked like it was going to be improved, but really outside of fixing up the copyright problem, notability hasn't been established in my opinion. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed the same editor has removed the deletion notice. I'll take it to his talk page and ask for his reasons before jumping to conclusions though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I must apologise for i was the one removing the deletion, I am new to wiki, and am fairly advanced in age, so this is all new for me! Anoldtreeok i believe the notability has already been stated fairly clearly by the creator, if you are unable to understand this information then i will gladly repeat it for you. I would also appreciate your help rather than your constant critism on the subject. I am unsure of where to start editing, and where i could get in contact with the creator of the page? Phrehaps i could send a further, easier to understand email to Anoldtreeok, to help him understand the notability easier? I also have the Potaski reunion books that mention Yumi Stynes and Denis Napthine amoungst his decendants, Would anyone know how to add this to the references? I am also some what confused with the citation process? I must also thank Jenks24 for being the only fellow editor to help me and explain the deletion process to me, i really appreciate it, for it was much different then the crude comments the other two kept giving me! I believe this is a historically important page. If notablility needs to be further discussed you can contact me, i will do my best to answer your queries, i would also appreciate your assistance rather then critisim. Thanks. (143.238.0.177 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Comments. First off, I think that the IP removing the AfD notice is definitely doing it in good faith and was simply trying to say "I don't think it should be deleted". Secondly, I'm not an expert in this area, but just because it (apparently) wasn't peer reviewed, does that make the source unreliable, even though the author is a professor at a University? Also, just because Cahill states "Whilst there is nothing great about his life", he still felt the need to write five pages on him, which I would see as significant coverage. Lastly, I think the key here is not the Cahill ref, but the books by Tipping, Paszkowski, Cotter, Mullan etc. It would be they, if anything, that proves he has significant coverage in reliable sources. We may have to assume good faith if either User:Ian3280 or User:143.238.0.177 (I'm assuming at least one of them has access to the books) asserts that he has significant coverage in any of these works. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This also asserts that he was the first Polish person to come to Australia. Also found this (Cahill is one of the authors) which states he was the first permanent Polish resident in Australia. Found this Encyclopedia of Melbourne Online article which also claims he was the first Polish immigrant. Just in the first two pages of my Google search there are about five websites also claiming this, so I think we can safely agree that he was Polish and was the first immigrant. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added Marie Purcell's books to the references. I have both of Marie's book's in my possession, they can also be read at: http://dunlops.onthe.net.au/familytree/mcdonald/default.htm Marie published her first book in 1987, the family reunion was also held in 1987, during which over 200 people attended. Marie then felt it was necessary to publish a second follow up book in 1991, The National Library of Australia has a copy of both of these books. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Potaski has an overwelming amount of references, yet his notability is still questioned? The infomation on Joseph Potaski seems to be way more extravagant, compared to that of other convicts, such as Billy Blue, Daniel Connor, Mary Bryant, William Hutchinson, James Ruse and Isaac Nichols, to name a few. Pherhaps the notability of these convicts should also be questioned? If Joseph Potaski doesn't measure up to the standard. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I queried the removal of the articles for deletion template, and yes, it was a simple misunderstanding done in good faith. I never doubted it was anything but, sorry if I came across as if I did though.
 * I'll explain what I've been trying to say in a bit more detail. The article has been improved quite a bit since this discussion was started, and especially from when it was first created. It still requires a fair amount of clean up, because right now, the article itself doesn't establish his notability. The basis of his notability, based on the article, seems to be that he was the first polish convict. Well, why exactly is that notable? Very little information is given as to what he actually did with his life. The article basically says he was transported to Australia, then released, then died. I found this article here that states he was executed. Why is that not in this article? It seems a pretty important event. Right now, the article just says he died.
 * You've probably guessed by now that this article is my first exposure to Joseph Potaski, which is why I haven't really been contributing to the article, because I am not knowledgeable on the subject, and don't want to misinterpret information and have the article be inaccurate. Some of the information I have found should be added into the article if it stays (and it probably will, it's improving pretty fast), but I am not the one to do it.
 * I'll give some suggestions that I think will improve the article, and should help it not be deleted:


 * 1. Establish what exactly it is that makes him notable, and why it makes him notable. The article itself has to establish the subject's notability. Currently, the article relies on him being the first jewish/polish person to arrive in Australia. OK, what else? Is this solely what makes him notable, or did he do something which adds to his notability? Even if he is very notable, if the article itself does not establish notability, it's not going to be of much use. For example, if Ned Kelly's page simply read "Ned Kelly was a Bushranger", no notability would be established. Obviously, Ned Kelly is a highly notable person deserving a wikipedia article. But if that is all the information given, if I read an article like that having never heard of Ned Kelly, I would ask myself "OK, why is he notable? There were a lot of bushrangers". And that's what this article is to me. It states what he is, but doesn't explain why that makes him notable. Obviously, there is more information, but by the end of reading, I can't help but wonder what was especially notable about Joseph Potaski. So far, it reads like the kind of story someone in my family would tell me, which wouldn't be of much interest beyond that small group.


 * 2. Be a bit more succinct. The article, especially the Potaski's transportation section brings up a bit too much information about the people he is with, which is unnecessary and innapropriate for an article about Potaski. For example, here is a sample of text from this section: Under the command of Lieutenant Colonel David Collins, the "Calcutta" left Portsmouth, and arrived at Port Phillip Bay on the 9 October 1803.[1] Collins was charged with establishing a new settlement, at present day Sorrento. However, Collins found the area to be unsuitable for settlement, and departed on 20 January 1804, for Hobart. It was at this time that renowned convict, William Buckley escaped the party, and lived amongst the aboriginals of the Port Phillip District. This text isn't relevant to Potaski outside of establishing who the people he is with are. If the article was larger, it would be easier to get away with, but because of the small size, these bits of text take up a fair amount of space. It also makes it appear as if he may be famous by association, as if somehow knowing/being in some way related to these other people makes him notable.
 * In short, focus on Potaski, and not too much on the people around him, outside of his family of course (such as in the legacy section.


 * 3. Just a quick thought, you reference a plaque commemorating him in Hobart's Pioneer Park. Perhaps you could get an image of that to liven up the article? I just think it would show that it exists.


 * 4. Lastly, even though it's not relevant to this discussion, I'll briefly explain citing references inline in its simplest form. At the end of anything you would like to source, put tags. Between these tags, enter the source. Under a references heading, add the code,, which is already there in the article, and you will have inline citations.


 * I think the article needs to address the first two points to avoid being again listed for deletion. The third point is just a general suggestion I think may give thee article a bit more weight, and point 4 is a brief tip on citing. Anyway, hope that helps, and hope that I didn't get off topic with the deletion discussion. I essentially reworded my problems with the article into suggestions, but I think they're relevant here. If you didn't understand anything I said, just ask me to try and explain it better. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Anoldtreeok, i will try to address the issues in the coming days. I have a photo Joseph Potaski's plaugue in Hobart, I also believe there is one in Marie Purecell's book. I will try to find one on the net, otherwise i will try to scan my copy. I also am unsure of how to upload a photo would anyone know of how to do this? The tasmanian state library also has a photo of Joseph Potaski's daughter, Catherine. Would this be considered appropiate. It also says that the photo can be used for private use, but you would need permission from the Tasmanian Archieve and heritage office. Would this cover the copyright laws? 143.238.0.177 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep: A person is considered to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Joseph Potaski has an overwelming amount of secondary sources. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Keep the article clearly states it notability and it has multiple sources to back it up. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep This article seems to relate to both Tasmania's and Australia's early colonial history. I am no expert, but i believe it seems to give a good insight into the family of ex convicts. The source are also very relaiable, and seem to be accurate. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have got permisson from the Tasmanian Archive and heritage Office to publicly display the photograph of Joseph daughter, Catherine. I believe this should help liven up the article. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability with multiple sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: This article has improved dramatically since it was first started. I believe it now meets all of the wiki requirements. And its notability is clearly stated, and it has many accurate sources to refer to. 124.176.212.171 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

""Keep"" I agree this article has improved greatly, it also clearly states the notability, and it has numerous sources. 124.180.32.18 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Still don't think it's the most noteworthy subject, but has been backed up with a fair degree of sources and has improved considerably. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (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.