Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak


 * 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. SoWhy 11:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:GNG. In addition we have WP:FRINGE issues. Subject has a phd, and was a state security officer for many years. In recent years he has been a journalist in Radio Maryja (appearing on the Myśląc Ojczyzna ("thinking homeland") show) and has from ~2012 onwards published a series of soft-cover popular-audience books titled "Zakazana historia" (Forbidden History) - you can see a list of titles and descriptions: here. The books are self-described as -
 * The fight for historical truth is an element of the struggle for political power, also in contemporary Poland. "Whoever controls the past controls the future," remarked the British writer and thinker George Orwell. Therefore, after the war, the communists began to fight for power from censoring, burning and destroying pre-war books. This was the introduction to the story being written anew. Today nobody officially censors history. Unofficially, however, certain topics are widely recognized as taboo. And as you know, the best censorship is self-censorship. The series "Forbidden History" is an antidote to the deception of Polish history..
 * Who controls the past, controls the present? wrote George Orwell in the famous? 1984?. This is one of the basic principles governing contemporary politics. History is the science most used for the ongoing political struggle. And so the Germans have long ago pushed the blame for the Second World War and the crimes committed in it for the mythological tribe "Nazi", which over 70 years ago wreaked havoc in Europe. Russia, however, has transformed the Soviet Union, the ally of Adolf Hitler and the co-creator of conflict in the liberator of the peoples of Europe. Western countries completely forgot the betrayal of their allies in Central and Eastern Europe (above all Poland) and leaving them (that is us) to the state of one of the cruellest totalitarian systems in the history of the world. In order not to spoil the youthfulness of existence, uncomfortable faits do not exist in Western history textbooks. Also to this day, the silent consent of the Allies to the Holocaust of Jews during the Second World War and the complete ignoring of the Polish government's appeals for help and pressure on the Germans to stop the extermination have not been explained. This is the fourteenth volume of historical articles and essays by dr Leszek Pietrzak, a former employee of the Office of State Protection, the National Security Bureau, the Institute of National Remembrance breaking the taboo of silence, around the "forbidden? and silent topics. In this collection, the text 'Europe's Thieves' is particularly noteworthy. showing that Germans did not leave illegally at World War II. And ? already from modern history? communist swindle made in the 1980s


 * Another, already 15th position in the PENELOPA Publishing House from the series "Forbidden History" treats about the falsification of history by our neighbors, Germany and Russia. Our neighbors made history a method of conducting politics. The lies that they sell about Poland and Poles are to be a justification for their crimes, and sometimes a way to transfer responsibility for them from the executioners to victims. The text unmasking this perfidious tactic is the essay "Who falsifies history", which is a kind of ranking of European historical liars. Noteworthy is the text "The instructive history of Klaipeda", showing how manipulations and lies translate into current politics.
 * (and similar descriptions - vary by title - on how they cover taboo or "self-censored" topics not covered by others).

which seems to illustrate the WP:FRINGE issue. While his journalist work does generate news-items and mentions (e.g. his analysis on various topics on Radio Maryja) - he himself as a topic is not covered. Pietrzak's work is mostly uncited (google scholar shows between 1-11 cites for less than 10 items that he (or someone with the same name - we did not establish via RS this is the same individual - but it probably is) published between 2000-9 (mostly from (possibly - not verified it is him) his work at Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy (a government labor research institute)) - his "forbidden history" series and other publications from after 2011 are not cited at all.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The English-language "Leszek Pietrzak" article is a translation of the Polish Wikipedia article of the same title ("Leszek Pietrzak"). I translated it on 24 April 2018 at the request of another Wikipedian. Leszek Pietrzak was deemed a notable subject for the Polish Wikipedia; that in itself may make him of interest to English-speaking readers. Notability is not necessarily a recognition of a subject person's reliability as a source of information, or of the individual's general admirability. The English-language Wikipedia includes many individuals who have not been admirable or who have been liars, including many statesmen across history. Nihil novi (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is relevant given the self description of the books - but that is a side argument - the main thing here is that he clearly doesn't pass on enwiki SNGs (WP:NPROF or WP:JOURNALIST) and this does not seem to be a WP:GNG pass (definitely not on sources currently in the article. My WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with much that was written about him by others and that describe him - most of what comes up is items that he wrote or commented on). Notability on Polish Wikipedia may be different.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is undoubtedly notable as confirmed by the 20 detailed inline cites appended to his article. It is not even necessary to establish that he is a journalist or a historian, although the fact that he is one does not appear to be in dispute — it is merely sufficient that for the past two decades he has been a well known public personality whose views and writings are widely publicized in print and public media. There are about 240 entries under sub-categories of Category:Conspiracy theorists by nationality and WP:FRINGE is not a reason for exclusion — Wikipedia has numerous articles for individuals such as Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Coughlin, David Irving or the two subjects that have recently been submitted for AfD and/or RM, Richard B. Spencer and James Mason (neo-Nazi).
 * It should be immediately specified, however that, unlike the above-mentioned individuals, Leszek Pietrzak has not been accused of being a Holocaust denier or a hatemonger and has worked for the Institute of National Remembrance. Although Pietrzak's article is certainly referenced in much greater detail than many of the articles delineating those accused of being "fringe", this is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pietrzak may, in fact, be considered a mainstream historian and has not engendered dispute and/or condemnation from other historians.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Subject is undoubtedly notable as confirmed by the 20 detailed inline cites appended to his article.
 * ..16 of them have himself as the author. Are you really saying those cites somehow create notability? Your argument seems to be that because his bibliography is cited that means he is notable. And see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I don't know where you're getting the rest of it from, i.e, about him being a well known public personality and widely publicized. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. An IP editor added cites to multiple "forgotten history" books written by him (that no one else cites). We are currently sourcing some bio info from an author page at a book publisher. In fact every single source here was authored by the subject or is an author profile at a publisher (and probably authored by the subject) - and they fail INDEPTH as well - so no independent sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum - unlike notable fringe authors (or notable historians) - it seems no RS has bothered to cover this subject in an independent manner - and it seems mainstream historians simply ignore him (as is evident by lack of citations to his books).Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject's claim to notability is as a scholar/journalist writing in Polish. Notable Polish-language scholars and journalists are, of course, widely cited in other languages including German and English, but my searches of JSTOR and gBooks turn up almost no citations of this writer.  Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROFESSOR, and WP:JOURNALIST. Searching for media coverage, I did find a mention of him at BBC Monitoring (A BBC service that translates foreign-language news articles into English) but it merely quotes him as "Leszek Pietrzak from the IPN". (Institute of National Remembrance" .  I see no indication of or support for notability in any of my searches.  What I do have is a suspicion that the creation of this article  may be an effort to "win" talk page arguments on highly-contested topics encountering a strong revisionist push by some Polish writers, I refer to pages including "Polish death camp" controversy, Jan Grabowski (historian), Jedwabne pogrom, and similar, on the premise that bluelinking the source lends strength to the argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies criteria of notability. Wikipedia is a global project and persons notable in certain countries, don't have to be visible in English world to have a page about them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't require English language sources, but there are so few here that the chances of being able to keep an article neutral, given his fringe ideas, is vanishingly small. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is unquestionably notable and affirmed by many full inline references.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability is marginal at best; we'd need better sources to satisfy WP:NFRINGE and build an NPOV bio. Due to these concerns, it's a "delete" for me at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, but I'm in favor of keeping per MyMoloboaccount. I think attempting to reject this article based solely on the subject's apparent lack of notability in English-language sources sets a poor precedent indeed. I've seen a similar non-notability argument used for deleting an article whose subject was primarily cited in Afrikaans-language works. It's never been convincing, and it's never sat well with me. The fact that the man's personal views border on fringe is irrelevant for a keep/delete discussion and do not affect his notability. -- Katan gais (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Katangais, NO ONE has argued that this be deleted for "lacking English Sources". Yours is a strawman argument. I and others have pointed out that it is highly unusual to find a notable scholar writing on the era of the Second World War who is not cited in the scholarly literature; scholars and sources in Polish are routinely cited in the scholarly literature in other languages.  Pietrzak and his books are not.  This is a strong indication that notability as a scholar is lacking.E.M.Gregory (talk)
 * - we are lacking Polish sources (or any language sources) - looking at the article you might be confused by the apparant citations (currently 28) - however they are 22 citations of his own work (including some 16 "Zakazana historia" titles - fringe aspect pointed out above), a short mention in this news item, himself speaking on Radio Maryja, one line mentioning him on something he collaborated with, Author profile at XLM (probably self-authored) - a book shop or publisher, Author page at Wprost (seems he contributed to 2 pieces) - one sentence of out of date (by a decade!) bio information, copy of his description at publishing house / book jacket in a BLOG (not RS) - again probably self-authored). At the moment - we don't have a single source here that someone else wrote in a RS - nor anything in-depth - the article is essentially built off of what appears on a book jacket.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz,there are plenty polish sources, none is self publushed, what are you talking about? And why is it fringe?? He is a well known historian in Poland, stop it.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources in any language per analysis by Icewhiz + looking on my own with the aide of google translate. Only interviews or self-written stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked at his Polish page, and said (in a related matter that took me there) it was unlikely he would pass notability on the English wiki as it is all SPS and trivial mentions. There really is not enough here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact is there any source being used which is not written by him?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * this news item which names him and not much else. All the rest, as far as I can tell, is either his work, or his "author/contributor profile" in various places.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought, this springs to mind WP:CITEKILL, it fact it is practically a stereotype of it. 28 cites, 21 of them just citing a book he has write for evidence...the book was written by him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- There is very little content in this article to point to his being notable. I note the Polish article is much the same length.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no prima facie reason to consider Leszek Pietrzak's writings less reliable than some sources cited in the article on Jan Grabowski by Icewhiz, such as Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel, or the Jerusalem Post.  Instead of "poisoning the well", we should critically evaluate the waters provided by all sources.  Nihil novi (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE - Not a valid afd rationale. It is not even a decent OSE arguement as Grabowski would easily pass on GNG due to SIGCOV and on a few of the PROF SNG's criteria. As for using Pietrzak's soft cover (or newspaper) writings as a source on wiki - we would need some indication they are considered reliable - which the publisher, Pietrzak's academic position (rather lack thereof), and the lack of anyone citing these works (in an academic setting) - would seem to indicate a big no (but this is a totally separate issue from wiki notability - we use non-notable people publishing in reputable peer reviewed journals).Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an RFD, not an RSN discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per MyMoloboaccount ApolloCarmb (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Myoloboloaccount's argument was persuasively refuted by refuted by User:Guy, Icewhiz and others..E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont see why you have bothered to write this.ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Revert User:GrizzlyCatBella's deletions of SPA tag quite properly affixed to two edits made above by an IP account SPA. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is "SPA"? And why did you delete "GizzyCatBella's signature added to her 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 vote after GizzyCatBella had regained access to the GizzyCatBella account?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the perplexed: On 26 April I noticed an IP making comments above. I looked at the IP's edit record, and tagged him as an WP:SPA: . I was puzzled a day or two later to have GizzyCatBella revert my SPA tag: with the assertion "Removed false allegation". It didn't seem like a false allegation to me, to me, it looked like an SPA, so I reverted GizzyCat's deletion of the SPA tag. I now see that the SPA is an alter-ego of GizzyCat's.  But at the time, it looked like a duck, so I tagged it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drop it E.M.Gregory,you seem to be confused. I signed my own comment. Don't waste time on this.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability. He's barely cited as a scholar, and he doesn't seem to have gained much traction as a conspiracy writer. François Robere (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (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.