Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krzysztof Wojciechowski


 * 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. While I appreciate the work done by, it just doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else that the article is worth keeping. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Krzysztof Wojciechowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He does meet Criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC quite easily with the Silver Cross of Merit for his contributions to science. I just linked his articles over at the German and Polish wikis, which have additional references for GNG, as well as a list of publications and other info that can be used to expand this article. EDIT: Others brought up that the silver cross might not satisfy #2 of NACADEMIC, so I did an exhaustive search of sources (finding many). I have added them, and the article now clearly meets the WP:GNG, with multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with significant detail (WP:HEY). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Silver Cross of Merit is a significant enough award to qualify. According to pl:Krzyż Zasługi there were 49,468 gold crosses and 84,642 silver awarded between 1992 and 2009. I make that nearly 8,000 per year at silver or higher. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * number of recipients shouldn't be an issue (so many articles, so little time:)), and this may be more appropriate at a different venue (Poland wikiproject talkpage?), but what civilian award do you deem significant enough to meet anybio? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Polish honours system, but I can see that this silver cross is awarded to more people than the British MBE, which is considerd to be two or three levels below that which is accepted as granting notability per WP:ANYBIO -- possibly a CBE and defininitely a DBE or KBE. For example my father was made an MBE in about 1974 or 1975 (I can't be bothered to look up the exact year at the moment) for "services to National Savings", which simply meant that he was an accountant who did a bit of voluntary work, but nothing approaching anything that would make him an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IP 86.17.222.157, thanks for that, i knew a 1st year uni student who was a swimmer, attended the olympics and was knocked out in the 1st round but according to WP:NOLYMPICS is notable enough for an article, also there were over 10,000 competitors at 2012 london alone, all eligible for standalone articles so even a couple hundred thousand silver cross recipients shouldn't be a problem:}}, also also:)), an MBE is the fifth and lowest class at Order of the British Empire, the silver cross is the second level of the Cross of Merit so not the same, anyway probably veering offtopic so that will do. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO with him receiving the silver cross. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above about that award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, While the subject is notable and we should have an article, there is an ongoing SPI which might lead to the article to qualify for deletion by G5. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This interpretation of G5 is a cancer on this project. Please explain how an ongoing SPI (link plz) is related to this, keeping in mind "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already vouched for the article's content. Therefore it doesn't qualify for G5, regardless of interpretation.—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In view of a recent RfC it should at least be mentioned. My view at that RFC at the time was that if at the time of an AFD the fact was known and decidedly ignored G5 should not apply and I think that was echoed by a number of other editors. Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As a general observation I note that this is quite a common name in Poland, so anyone looking for sources needs to check that they've got the right Krzysztof Wojciechowski. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I found at least a dart player that was linked to the target. Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the previous Keeps? It doesn't need GNG, it meets other subject specific notability guidelines. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * also, please see the polish and German articles for additional sources for GNG. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything needs to meet the General notability guidelines, that is why they are general. If there are additional sources, they should be put in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except WP:PROF. WP:PROF says: "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." You might be interested in this discussion which aims to change the exemption of WP:PROF from WP:GNG, but the proposal seems to have attracted significant opposition. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right that WP:PROF is a valid, and better for applicable subjects, alternative to the WP:GNG. The problem is that the subject of this article passes none of the points of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply below. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for two reasons first overwhelming reason: this stub was started, probably as a provocation of some sort by a sock of anti-Polish-names editor Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen, for that reason alone this bio stub should be deleted, it's not something we want to encourage. Based on the sockmaster's previous avatars there's a likelihood that future sock accounts for disruptive editors, and IP edits for even more unpleasant material are likely to follow. Second reason, with all respect to the BLP, who is clearly notable for inclusion in Polish Wikipedia, the fact that there is a dab page of people at the same name and we didn't have an article for any of them shows that en.wp doesn't have to have articles for every BLP in other language wps (just as Polish, German etc wp don't have BLPs for every Australian/Irish/Indian/British/American who has a BLP here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - if anyone is torn on this point, note that the one-line trolling BLP which has been created has only 1 line of content created using Google translate. If the consensus here is really keep I would volunteer to replace the deleted stub, and give it more content. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out, deletion for G5 is invalid as soon as anyone !votes keep. In particular, I have already vouched for the content, and intend to recreate the article immediately in its current state if deleted for G5 reasons (yes I will be WP:POINTY on this issue). As far as I am aware, I am not a banned or blocked user, and having put my hand up, you may consider the current version as my own edit. Although I understand your reasoning (to punish socks by deleting their creations) using G5 as an argument for deletion of an article that multiple people have !voted keep on in a deletion discussion is asinine IMO. (Note that I would not recreate if it was deleted for some other reason than G5, just to clarify)—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Insertcleverphrasehere, I think the bigger picture here is that if the article comes or goes, either way, it shouldn't have the Academicoffee71 sock as the article creator, persistent socks are a major hassle for Wikipedia, we need to not reward them in any way. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some disagreement about whether it is appropriate to disrupt wikipedia by deleting acceptable content just to 'punish' a sock. I personally don't see the point in deleting the article and immediately recreating it, just to remove a user's name from the editing history. I am also unclear how this is any different in terms of 'reward', the article would still exist, and I would think that would be the main 'reward' for the sock anyway, not their name down the bottom of a random history page. Can you point me to a discussion or policy page that shows support for your rationale of deleting and recreating to remove a sock from the edit history? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just exercising a bit of experience with this particular sockmaster. But it would be best to be deleted anyway. I think the comment about Silver Cross and the amount of recipients really means not WP:GNG, not sure what Silver Cross is equivalent to in UK or US, but would it be equivalent to a British MBE? That isn't notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Silver cross was in relation to WP:PROF, not GNG, and PROF isn't needed now that sourcing has been added to meet GNG. As for deleting via G5, I won't object to it so long as no prejudice is given towards another user recreating the article (which will be me almost immediately). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not because of the identity of the person who created this, which is irrelevant because this should be deleted anyway, and certainly not because the subject is Polish as claimed as a reason for deletion by In ictu oculi. I don't know about other language Wikipedias but here at English Wikipedia there is nothing in policy or guidelines that discriminates between article subjects on the basis of nationality or the language of sources. The subject is simply not notable per the English Wikipedia guidelines. I have explained above how the Silver Cross of Merit falls below the expectations of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO, and the claim made above that the Polish and German (both languages that I can read) articles show a pass of WP:GNG is simply incorrect. The only additional independent sources there are a local newspaper report of the award of the Silver Cross of Merit and the official announcement of the same. I can find no additional sources in Polish, German or English to add to these. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You argument regarding the Silver Cross is relatively compelling, though I would like to see a discussion regarding the MBE honor not being sufficient for WP:ANYBIO. Note that the Polish article also claims that he "is a laureate of the European Diploma awarded in 2005 by the Prime Minister of Brandenburg and the Golden Medal of Merit of the Viadrina University (2012)", but I agree with you that criteria #2 is marginal.
 * We don't have to rely on it though. His body of work as an author might qualify him per PROF #9 (hard to verify as I don't speak polish to look up reviews of his work, but see: ). He also seems to qualify for #6 given his role as administrative director for Collegium Polonicum w Słubicach, as well as his role as chairman of the Fundacja_na_rzecz_Collegium_Polonicum.
 * As for searching for sources for GNG, you need to search "Dr. Krzysztof Wojciechowski", as there are others with the same name that make searching difficult otherwise. There is additional coverage of him regarding his proposal to create a monument to Wikipedia editors    (lol aren't we grateful?). He was interviewed here with Deutsche Welle, there was some coverage of an interview he had on German radio here, and another interview here. There are some other brief mentions as well   . These are in addition to the two sources about the silver cross  . As a side note... how do you ping an IP? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to ping - I'll try to follow this discussion daily until it is closed. Again I would point out that none of the sources that you provide are more than mentions of the subject, and also that the Collegium Polonicum is not a university or college in its own right but simply a name given to a joint project between two universities (one of which I happen to have studied at, so I can't be accused of bias against it), so being its administrative director is not a pass of WP:PROF criterion 6. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Award is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Ok It is clear that nobody has read WP:NEXIST. I'm going to unwatchlist this discussion, and I will use my time more effectively by using the above sources to expand the article (at least 5 of those sources can be used for GNG, so your claim here is right out.) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland asking about the merits of the silver cross, "coola, thats enough!", okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry :( in good faith but unfortunately that means the rest of this discussion is now WP:CANVASSED; you should really have asked the question about the Silver Cross, but unfortunately you've asked it about this article and linked this discussion. How many Silver Crosses are awarded each year? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i have clarified my statement at the project as to whether editors believe the silver cross meets notability requirements - i was not seeking their support on this article, anyway i'm not sure that it is canvassing, i did not ask editors to save this article, i am not aware that poland project participants will necessarily support the keeping of an article just because it comes under the purview of the project, indeed, there are a lot of editors who are a member of a project and regularly support the deletion of articles ie. sportspeople who don't meet the relevant sng that has been agreed upon by the project, anyway i apologise if that was the impression given. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that your edit was in complete good faith, but the problem here, which I'm also sure that you were not aware of and I didn't mention before because it was irrelevant, is that Krzysztof Wojciechowski is a regular editor of Polish Wikipedia as are many of the members of our Poland Wikiproject, so some of them may regard themselves as his friends and so not be completely unbiased. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Different Standards for Keeping Categories vs. Keeping Articles/Neutral In order to keep an award recipient category, you just need to pass WP:OCAWARD to show the award is WP:DEFINING. (Usually I interpret that to mean that the award adds to someone's notability rather than just reflecting it.) Typically though, award categories are added to biography categories that have already demonstrated their WP:NOTABILITY. A few exceptions exist (like the Nobel Peace Price or maybe Poland's top award, the Order of the White Eagle) where the award itself is so prominent that it provides notability unto itself but this is rare and doesn't apply here from my perspective. There might be borderline cases where an award pushes a biography over the edge to meet notability but I'll defer to other editors to decide whether that's the case with this article. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment HEY. I have expanded the article to include numerous additional sources. The article now clearly and verifiably meets the General notability guideline, with multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with significant detail. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I admire your hard work, but I'm still not convinced. Interviews with the subject are not independent sources and the reports of his monument to Wikipedia editors fall foul of WP:NOT, and the fact that he is a Wikipedia editor himself makes this monument itself non-independent. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You pointed out the only refs that don't satisfy GNG, and ignored the rest that do. Also, what the interviewers say about the subject outside of the interview questions is independent (not the responses of the subject obviously). I see that there isn't any convincing you though. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then, please point out which sources do satisfy GNG. It is not correct that there is no convincing me: if you look at my contribution history you will see that I always make every effort to see the glass as half full rather than half-empty, as I spent a couple of hours today doing here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well.
 * #1 is a review of one of his books, but also goes out of its way to discuss the author as well, describing his career and qualifications, as well as motivations in writing the book, much more than a trivial mention. The source seems to be a reliable one, and I can't see any evidence that he is associated with it, so it seems independent as well. Also contributes to PROF #1.
 * #2 This source clearly goes into significant detail, as does #3. These two sources are about the silver cross being awarded, but they also both discuss the subject in detail and describe the reasons why he won it, and other accomplishments. Both sources make a good case for notability, and these two alone would seem sufficient for GNG in my mind. Some would argue WP:BLP1E would apply if these were used alone, but it is not an event, it is an award for major contributions over a lifetime, and these contributions are detailed in a short biography by each source. In any case, it isn't being used alone.
 * This interview contributes to GNG (though not as strongly as the three above I admit). It has a description at the bottom in italics that outlines his major accomplishments. I would consider this more than a trivial mention, though I am aware that some might disagree, especially as the title describes him as an 'expert' (or at least that is how google translates it). DW also seems to be a highly prestigious source, so it calling him an expert is no small thing (i.e. also indicating that the subject meets #1 of PROF).
 * That's three solid sources discussing the subject in detail, when all we need is 2. Add a bunch of 'arguable/almost' meetings for a half a dozen of the WP:PROF criteria, and even if you think GNG is marginal, it should be kept.
 * Also, I apologize for what I said about not being able to convince you; I accept that not everyone agrees on the definition of terms like 'significant coverage', and it tends to cause disagreement on cases like this one that are closer to the borderline, and often this can't be reconciled. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first of the sources that you offer is from the Europäische Ost-West-Akademie. From looking at its web site there is no indication that this is a reliable source. I can find no academic affiliation with any university or indication of any editorial board, or anything else that would qualify it as anything other than just a random web site. The other two sources that you offer are local newspapers just printing announcements of the minor award that the subject received along with a bit of background information obviously provided by Wojciechowski himself. Local newspapers don't have the resources to do any fact-checking of such information. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statement "Local newspapers don't have the resources to do any fact-checking of such information." is pretty ridiculous. That is tantamount to saying that local newspapers aren't reliable for anything, and that all journalists in local newspapers are incapable of doing basic fact checking, which is obviously false. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that journalists in local newspapers are incapable of doing basic fact checking, but that they don't have the time or resources to do so, which is why local newspapers are generally not considered to count towards notability on Wikipedia. Do you really believe that these papers did any fact-checking other than looking at the official announcement of this minor award and getting basic biographical details from Wojciechowski himself? If so then you are incredibly naïve about how local newspapers work. I'm tempted to go into further details about how I and other clearly non-notable members of my family have had local newspaper articles published about ourselves, including, but not limited to, a leading front page article about an incident that happened to my nuclear family and my daughter separately having a photograph of the back of her head covering the whole front page, but prefer not to get into too much personally identifying detail. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (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.