Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz


 * 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.  Kurykh  00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was speedy-tagged as an A7. I declined to delete it on the basis that notability was asserted (although I stated that I wasn't at all sure that it would survive an AfD if brought here). Today, the subject of the article appears to have requested its deletion. Given that it might not clear WP:N as it is, I think the apparent request of the subject should be enough to delete this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) The last conclusion for this AfD is: The article stays on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubek15 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * please delete this article. See also Talk:Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz. It's preposterous - I already have a page for me in WP-En, no need to create this pitiful stub in the Main namespace. Kpjas (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and the subject. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Completely non-notable - fails A7 Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete not a speedy, anyway, since founder of Polish version of WP is at least an assertion of some notability, however non-notable we at WP think founding a language version of WP may be. I'm not sure its enough for WP:N,, but I cannot judge the Linux-related notability which might be enough. DGG (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that the founder of Polish Wikipedia is Paweł Jochym - I can't tell from my personal experience - and there's no article about him in WP-En AFAIK. Guerilla times of early Wikipedia were quite exciting and both of us would very well qualify to be mentioned in a section about the early days in the article called History of Polish Wikipedia but a standalone article ? It's someone's little blunder so please go ahead and speedydelete it. Kpjas (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so you can delete things about Linux, but please, don't delete this article. You see, Polish Wikipedia is really big Wikipedia, and he is a founder. Kubek15  -  Talk,  Userboxes ,  Contributions  15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a reference (which I found in the Polish Wikipedia article) to confirm the he was Poland's Internet Citizen of the Year 2004. I'm not sure if that's enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article won't be deleted so I delete the AfD template from Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz.
 * AFAIK there is no conclusion to this AFD yet. The above comments are somewhat puzzling. Ros0709 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Shared an award in Poland for Internet Citizen of the Year. -- Kendrick7talk 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject request. Now this is, I think, a fine use of the Biographies of living persons clause. He may be a founder of the Polish Wikipedia, but we don't have any reliable sources that say so, and he personally denies it. He shared a prize at an computer expo, but we don't have any evidence that is a notable prize. He may well not meet Notability (persons) anyway, and, in addition, he asks this article be deleted. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually the source which I added for his Internet Citizen of the Year award does confirm that he was a founder of Polish Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have any idea whether the award is notable in Poland? I always feel uncomfortable deleting articles of foreign subjects whose articles were transwikied here from somewhere else. If the Polish article was deleted first, this would make more sense. -- Kendrick7talk 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; sole sourced claim to notability is a single award at an internet and technology expo. Especially given that the subject requests deletion, I don't think there's enough here to satisfy notability guidelines.  --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In deference to User:Kpjas above. (Other reasons apply but I think in cases where someone is almost definitely non-notable and posts a notice such as above, it trumps all others per WP:BLP) Also clear self-referencing issues within the article. Orderinchaos 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the following quote at WP:BLP "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted, and may exercise his or her own discretion in fulfilling that request.". Clearly meets that standard, the notability here is borderline at best, and given the self-request to have it deleted, it seems clear there is not much of a reason to keep it around.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Jayron32 and Orderinchaos. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Counter-intuitively, I would not necessarily base the keep / delete decision on the subject's request that it be deleted. He comes across as a modest man but I suspect he'd secretly like the page to stay. After all: he's an admin, could presumably speedily delete it himself now (or in the future), but has not. Ros0709 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That kind of out of process use of admin tools in an area in which you have an interest would be inappropriate. Let's assume he's telling the truth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Speedying his own article wouldn't be a conflict of interest, would it? Considering Angela Beesley was not just an admin but a board member, and wanted her article deleted, and didn't delete it herself... But, I'm sure she secretly glories in in as well. Yes, absolutely let's look into Kpjas's heart, and not pay any attention to what he actually says. No, wait, that's not sufficiently verifiable, is it? I've got it - let's use divination by tea leaves! I've just drunk a cup of Earl Grey, and, stirring the cup three times widdershins and peering into the dregs ... no, the tea leaves say, he wants it deleted after all, like he says. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More seriously, please do compare our article Angela Beesley, which has 12 sources, and still has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, mainly for the "she doesn't want it" reason, coming reasonably close each time. Now Poland isn't quite as media-rich and Internet-wired as the UK, but neither is it Chad. I think a little bit more than a paragraph about winning an award can be asked for to prove Kpjas to be undisputably notable, in the face of his not wanting it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although I haven't registered an opinion here as such I did tag the article for speedy delete when it was created on grounds of notability. Given the overwhelming opinion in favour of delete so far I do not think that observation (carefully expressed as a comment, full of weasel words) will in any way affect the result. But I do respect the guy for taking the stance he has. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Inadequate assertion of notability. Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Kendrick7.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per subject request and (at most) a borderline case of notability. The award may contribute to notability but it certainly doesn't make it seem wrong for us not to have an article.  Mango juice talk 19:23, 24 January 2008 (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.