Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Swierad


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Marek Swierad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) of this terribly formatted article (Wikipedia is not a CV host...) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (authors) requirement. I am not seeing any significant coverage in Polish sources. Pl wiki entry discussed at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:12:01:Marek Świerad, currently leaning to delete (self-published writer, no reviews or other independent sources). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This author has had only one item translated, and it looks like the only copy of that is in the Polish National Library (per Worldcat). So although the author has some impact in Poland and Polish, he hasn't notability for English-language readers. Note that nothing turns up in Library of Congress nor Harvard libraries, which do collect in a wide number of languages. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that language argument is invalid when it comes to notability. We don't prioritize English over Polish, whether it's sources or regional notability. In other words, we don't care if someone is notable in England or Poland, if you are notable in one place - even if it can verified only with non-English sources - it's perfectly acceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While we do allow non-English resources as references, it makes little sense to include in the @en WP every entry from every other WP, nor to include all @en entries in every other WP. Each WP has its own rules and culture for inclusion, and @en WP is not a de facto aggregation of all. Notability in this WP is still notability. And notability requires reliable sources, such as book reviews, articles in mainstream newspapers, etc. This article doesn't have that. Pointing out that the author has not been translated and is not carried in major English-speaking libraries is a statement about notability, not about language. Many authors who write in non-English languages are visibly present in our libraries, bookstores, and review sources. LaMona (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that translations are an indicator of notability, lack of translations is not an indicator of a lack of notability. There's no policy or guideline to support the statement that " it makes little sense to include in the @en WP every entry from every other WP, nor to include all @en entries in every other WP", except for the fact that some Wikipedias have different notability requirements, and thus some articles that are allowed to stay in one Wikipedia may be deleted from another one which has stricter requirements. But there are plenty of notable, let's say, Polish authors with no translations to English that are nonetheless highly notable. Ex. Andrzej Pilipiuk, whose works, as far as I know, have not been translated into any foreign language. Would you argue this means he shouldn't have an article on en wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the Andrzej Pilipiuk article is pretty weak - only two references, and most of the article is a bibliography, which is something we try to avoid. I realize that the @en WP is the one that is most noticed and possibly most valued for international attention, but it really isn't intended, IMO, to include all of the information from all of the language WPs in existence. As I said before, one still has to meet notability requirements of @en WP, and I don't think that Marek Swierad meets this criterion. Ref. #1 is merely a listing in a library catalog; 2&3, although I can't read them, are compilations of short paragraphs on different topics, so if he is one of the topics, it's a brief mention. (And I can't find him listed in the page at #2). #5 is about someone else, and is a WP article, which are not considered reliable sources. #4 seems to be by him, not about him (after running a section through translate - if that's not the case pls provide a translation of the relevant portion). So we're still looking for significant, reliable sources. And note that it is up to the article to prove notability, not for us to prove lack of. LaMona (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:46, 23 December 2014 (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.