Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Strzała


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Marek Strzała

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability - Might be notable in Krakow, but not very notable on the Internet - no English language sources. Few if any independent references with wider recognition. It's a guy with a travel website - article written with a blatant advertising bent.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect with diacritical marks removed:

Ajh1492 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Redirect to Krakow-info. By creating this entry, I simply stated the obvious. Many WP articles about Krakow which I worked on feature his website (if not Strzala personally) as our resource base, including Kraków / Churches of Kraków / History of Kraków / St. Leonard's Crypt / Church of St. Casimir the Prince / Wolf Popper Synagogue / Transport in Kraków / Wawel Cathedral / St. Mary's Basilica, Kraków / Kupa Synagogue / Church of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Kraków / and Historical Museum of Kraków. In case our community decides that Strzala himself is not notable enough, I would suggest that the article be renamed redirected to Krakow-info (http://krakow-info.com which Strzala created). Krakow-info is used in many more WP articles as the source of info about the city including Culture of Kraków / Juliusz Słowacki Theatre / Hedwig glass / Lesser Poland Voivodeship / Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts / Opera Krakowska / Districts of Kraków / Lesser Poland / Kraków szopka / Wawel Cathedral / Collegium Maius / and ...  482 other Wikipedia articles in the English language. — Krakowski (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a LOT more notable references to the locations and sights of Krakow. Having lots of links in EN:WP is NOT a sign of notability especially when you personally state you have created a number of those articles. It brings into question all those other articles if they are correctly sourced. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. If a topic needs improving, go ahead and improve it. — Krakowski (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked through a number of the cited articles and the referenced to the author's works are of ephemeral usage in the articles provide (tacked onto the bottom and not even cited inline). I just don't see how the author rises to the level of Notability (biographies). There are significantly more reliable references than some author's attempt at a Yahoo-clone. IMHO, it's advertising. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of articles you quote use this website as nearly a single source. A simple search finds lots of other more notable sources to use. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Krakow-info seems like a non-spam website, at least at the first glance. Whether it is reliable, is a more interesting question. I don't see that it cites any other references. See Notability (websites) and if you think it is notable, please create the entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. At this point the article does not satisfy Notability (biographies). We would need sources independent of the subject (not self-published), discussing him and showing he is notable. If you could find them and add to the article, I'd support keeping. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should not be written in a promotional tone. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more like a locally-gown version of Yahoo. Why not use sites like www.krakow.pl from the local tourism authority. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, Wikipedia. Both creating and reading such websites seems to me a waste of time (this is not an argument in this deletion, just my own opinion on misguided good faith efforts people put into creation of such sites that try to poorly duplicate what Wikipedia has or will eventually do much better). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: just for the record, it is not necessary to directly apply the AFD tag to the redirect as well as to the main article; if the main article gets deleted, the redirect will be speedied as a G8 at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, the only thing to be found is a couple of his own articles. No prejudice against Krakow-info provided it meets WP:WEB, comfortably if possible - frankie (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Please make note that the article has been re-written according to your suggestions and moved to Krakow-info. Thanks. — Krakowski (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make a mess of the AfD. Don't repurpose and move the article, create the new article separately and just let this one (and the redirect) be deleted. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that this is restored as a separate article. Now, is this website notable per Notability (web)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the Alternatives to deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. [..] Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. " Improvements inspired by comments from the community are a part of regular editing. They should not be reverted back by the nominator during an AFD, so that he could have a better chance of fulfilling his wish. Articles for deletion, section How to discuss an AfD suggests: "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed..." There's nothing to be gained by preventing improvements from happening. — Krakowski (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:ATD doesn't say you gut the entire article, replace the content with a completely different article then move the article to try and avoid the AfD. Now we have a separate discussion on the Krakow-info article. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it a problem. You completely replaced the content of the Marek Strzała with Krakow-info content - simply move the content you created into the Krakow-info article - you're the sole author of the information. Then we can close this AfD by deleting Marek Strzała AND Marek Strzala cleanly, otherwise we need to go through a separate RfD on Marek Strzala. So I don't see what the problem is... Ajh1492 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 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.