Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krupa de Tarnawa


 * 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   delete.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Krupa de Tarnawa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a page dedicated to the self research of Alfred Krupa. It contains mostly speculation, shamanic dreaming, and is not encyclopedic material. Was there ever a real Krupa de Tarnawa family of notable international status? RebekahThorn (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

STRONG KEEP - DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - I, Lisa Palmer am the creator of the Krupa de Tarnawa article. It is written in a neutral way, quoting a great number of second and third sources that are encyclopedic in nature and this article is not a glorification of Alfred Krupa’s research. It enlarges a report about information that has been formally confirmed by one of the largest European genetic-genealogy organizations in the world. Therefore, it is not composed of elements of original research.

The Krupa family is listed in all editions of the Yugoslavian Fine Art Encyclopedia. The Krupa family is also listed in the Croatian Fine Art Encyclopedia, in the Croatian Fine Art Lexicon, and in the Karlovac Lexicon. Furthermore, the family has been recognized by the all Polish-Lithuanian nobility institutions and the CoA. Also, the family is listed in the Burkes Peerage and Gentry.

The article is not based on speculations and shamanic journeys. It is based on dry facts behind iGENEA’s verification. Shamanic dreaming is a very important and legitimate spiritual process. This belief is very important to Asians and Native Americans. This article contains only small reports regarding shamanism. There is no reason not to talk about this subject. Please see that I created this article. The shamanic information is important to many people that I know here in the United States. I do not accept this woman’s reasons for deletion.

It seems that Ms. Rebekah Thorn has objections that are subjective in nature and personally colored. Alfred Krupa Senior was an invited author on the Monte Carlo Grand Prix International Exhibition and was a pre-war amateur champion of boxing in Poland. Also, Alfred Krupa Jr. was a student in Tokyo and invited by the Japanese Government. He was an elected fellow of the RSA, London-Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce. Queen Elisabeth II is also a patron of that society.

Please note that when notability of the article is established, it is not temporary. Notability was established by the awarded administrator on the 29th of December, 2010. (see the revision history) Without any speculation, this article is scientifically confirmed.Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 00:55, December 31,2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has many sources that don't seem to establish any kind of notability for the subject of the article, often making no reference to the subject of the article at all. The vast majority of the article seems to be off-topic to the actual subject of the article (a family). Nothing, or nothing of any substance, in GNews, GBooks or GScholar. Lots of strange sites in straight up Google searches. The absolute best conclusion I can draw is that it exists (probably), and that isn't an argument to keep. Also: One admin cannot establish notability simply by editing an article. And no admin did that anyway. A bot edited the article automatically. A bot, by definition, makes no judgment on article validity. Nor is a bot an admin. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Without digging too much, I searched the article itself for occurrences of "Tarnawa". There were few, very few. Maybe chunks of the article could find homes in other articles, and the article, seemingly about a not-so-notable family be deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The creation of an article is an ongoing process and many elements are needed to make it sucessful!  This takes time and learning.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a place that you can feel safe to create an article and have the ongoing time to work on and improve ones creation.  However, I do think that this takes time to learn how things work and those that know must give those that are learning how to do it, time to do it.  I am in the process of working on trying to improve the article.  I ask that it not be deleted and that it be allowed to be improved.Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)  Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 08:34, 2, January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't panic or worry. Please feel free to work on the article if you like. Keep the title of the article in mind. Make sure the content is about the subject. You have days and days to do this. But consider, before you expend a lot of energy: If you came across this article in Encyclopedia Britannica, would it seem encyclopaedically written, notable, and on topic? Try not to be subjective because you wrote it. Question the sources. Are they good sources? Most importantly, don't panic. If you need help, just ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I meant "Krupa", when I said I searched that string. It just doesn't come up much. Actually, both don't. Try John, King of England and search occurrences of "John" in the article. Do the same for Napoleon I and search "Napoleon". You will see what I mean. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't vote more than once, Arielmoonchild33. If you have more to add to the discussion, just add it in. You can also preface it with something like "comment", as I have done. I have struck out your second vote. I should point out that pleading for time won't really help your case. The best thing that can help your case is finding reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the Krupa de Tarnawa family. The sources in the article, as it stands now, don't do that as far as I can see. They mostly refer to facts that are not directly related to the family or its notability (unsurprising, as most of the article is not about the family). The handful of sources related directly to the family are less reliable than one might expect, or hope. The citation of Burke's Peerage, for example, links to a rather different site from the official one; a rather dubious one that encourages me to send them my own family's crest for inclusion. The authoritative Burke's has no records for "Krupa", "Tarnawa", or "Krupa de Tarnawa". A second source seems to only confirm that there is a museum, not that the item in question (a portable steel bunker) is exhibited there. I can find no reference at all that this portable steel bunker, or its inventor, are notable. A third source confirms the existence of a Neo-Templar Order website, but not that the person in question is famous for having led it (as the article claims). In fact, searching seems to indicate that the organization is not notable, nor is its former leader. The last two sources could only establish personal notability, rather than family notability (and they fail anyway). Those are all the sources I see that actually have any direct relation to Krupa de Tarnawa family members. They are all terrible. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment.Scoops, Thank you for alerting me of the particulars of how to correctly utilize this page. I have changed to comment as you suggested.  I am new at this and am learning as I go along.  I appreciate your help.  I thought that Wikipedia was set up to be an ongoing process for all people.  People do not write the same way, nor do they have the same skills of writing.  Think about when you first endeavored to create something.  Did you want someone to delete it or did you want to keep making it better.   I am not pleading, I am asking for it not to be deleted and to have the time to make the article better. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE Now the article is more than fine. Coherent. Encyclopedic in all segments. Very important topic for itself. Congratulations.Volvo144deluxe (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of this article doesn't even seem to relate to the subject and I don't think it is encyclopedic material. I'm fairly sure that the only part of the article that relates to the 'family' is the opening paragraph. I couldn't find anything about them on Google, which suggests that they are not notable at all. Also Lisa, a good way of avoiding people deleting articles that you are in the process of writing is to create them as a subpage in your user account. That way it is obvious that you are still working on them. Once you have finished an article, you can then move it to the main Wikipedia as a proper article. Andrew vdBK  ( talk ) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - thanks Andrew about the subpage info - it seems Ms. Thorn wanted the article deleted due to the name Krupa de Tarnawa and she being the original person that started this deletion process had an argument against Krupa de Tarnawa being used in the article. Well as you can see the only thing that you see relating to the family is the opening paragraph.  Maybe I have my subject line wrong and that I should name my article something else - there is much information in my article that has notibility.  I think that would change decisions to delete - please see original reason that Ms. Thorn asked for deletion.  I really feel that this article should not be deleted - that it has merit and is encyclopedic material.  Given time for working on it, I can prove that all that has been said here can be and will be fixed.  I still believe that delete is not the way to go.  I appreciate any and all help.  I say let me keep my article, work on it and prove to you that my article is encyclopedic.  Give me a chance to be as savy as you all are and to learn from you.  I would take any help that you will offer.  Let's keep this article up and show people that are coming along like I am (newbies) that there is help and that there is hope, that we newbies can learn to write Wikipedia as good as those that have the expertise and experience.  Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm also starting to have concerns about the provenance of much of the material in the article. Every block of randomly chosen article text that I paste into Google returns other exact hits. Some are other Wikipedia articles (like these tables), which is fine from a copyright perspective but not great from a project-management perspective (content forking and whatnot). Other bits of text return external, copyrighted sources | like this. Note especially that the search text has a lonely closing bracket from where "(see below)" was mis-deleted. | This was the first random text I chose. It also mirrors a site with a copyright notice on it. There are citations in our article, but this is a word-for-word copying of paragraphs, not quoting a sentence or paraphrasing. I wonder how much article would be left if all the duplicated info, unsourced info, and copied info was removed. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you Arielmoonchild33? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right Anna, Volvo144deluxe is definitely a sockpuppet Andrew vdBK  ( talk ) 20:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment No, I am not Volvo144deluxe and I don't need such help! I am asking you to read the article again and vote again. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three paragraphs make some assertions about the notability of two family members. They may or may not deserve articles. I don't see anything that establishes the notability of the family. Everything after the first three paragraphs still seems like a misplaced biology/history lesson and does nothing to establish family notability, or even refer to the family in any meaningful way. Compare this article's content to what's written about the Rockefeller family or the House of Windsor, for example. Those articles show why the families are notable. This article shows the family exists. While the article is better than it was at the start of this AfD, there is still a dearth of reliable sources about the actual topic of the article. It's all just lipstick on a pig. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 01:16, 4 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.