Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (3rd nomination)


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan since the named article had been moved during the course of the AfD, but closing admin's script only deleted the redirect. -- slakr \ talk / 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I closed the first listing of this discussion as null and void. The discussion got way off topic, and was more concerned with blocking and sock-puppetry and general bad faith. THis discussion is getting a fresh start. To view the previous discussion, see Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided). The nomination for deleting this article was based on lack of notability. The nominator felt that the references provided in the article were not directly relative to this article's subject, but rather more generally to the time and place that this family lives/has lived. I have no opinion in the matter. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as the nominator. That one or two members of a family were notable, which I admitted long ago, doesn't make the family notable. Yes, the name of the family gives a few [G]hits, but this is in relation to one notable individual and many with same or similar surname not related to this family at all. How many publications mention the FAMILY as a FAMILY? One? Two? How many academic? Zero? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Extremely Strong Keep (from article's author Exxess).


 * In direct and unequivocal refutation, the article on nobility clearly states:


 * 'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...'

See above. The following has been the basis of a deletion nomination -- Quoting Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Notability fallacies -- Google test -- Examples: * Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"

The article has surmountable problems; but, given the documented and referenced antiquity of the family as nobility in verifiable sources makes the family per se inherently notable, in my opinion. -- Exxess (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have no idea why notability is even being debated, as it's clearly established in books that are not published online. The family is ancient. Quoting above: "Yes, the the name of the family gives a few hits, ..."  Not all verifiable sources should be presumed to exist online, nor should that be the sole criteria. I don't think a deletion nomination is justified on notability claims. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules, and this is becoming an unnecessary justification of WP:RS and Cite book. The family is notable. The deletion nomination was made in haste. I don't think it can be sustained on notability claims, unless there is a criteria for notability that is secret. -- Exxess (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło as a family as listed in the article's reference section:
 * Jerzy Zdrada, "JAROSŁAW DĄBROWSKI: 1836 -- 1871" (Kraków, POLSKA: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973), pages 9-10 (This book is not available online.  Go to a library to read it for verification purposes.  I obtained my copy at UCLA in Los Angeles.):
 * Quoting page 9:
 * "Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności.  Nigdy też nie dostąpili Dąbrowscy ważniejszych urzędów i godności, zadowalając się w latach istnienia Rzeczypospolitej komornictwami, skarbnikostwem, wojskostwem, miecznikostwem czy stolnikostwem.  Nie brak też było w rodzinie duchownych.  Rozrastającemu się rodowi Żądło-Dąbrowskich szybko zrobiło się ciasno na ubogim Mazowszu.  W ciągu XVI i XVII wieku zaczęto się przenosić, głównie dzięki małżeństwom, w inne zakątki Rzeczypospolitej.  Tym też sposobem jedna z gałęzi rodu Dąbrowskich w końcu XVIII wieku zakorzeniła się na Wołyniu."
 * Rough translation in English directly from the article.
 * "The family Dąbrowski originated from Mazowsza, most likely from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka below Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa. They were always nobility, belonging to the szlachta odwieczna or immemorial nobility, and in the armorials of Poland, documentation from the 15th century is used to note them.  Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family, and wealth came to other members (Szlachta zamożna/bene natus possessionatus et dominus) in certain periods.  The Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, but in the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's existence (First Rzeczpospolita, or Rzeczpospolita szlachecka – Nobles' Commonwealth/Republic), they served in office as chamberlains (komornictwami/princeps nobilitatis - formerly the Judge in boundary disputes), treasurers (skarbnikostwem), seneschal (wojskostwem/tribunus), sword-bearers (miecznikostwem), and pantlers (stolnikostwem).  Nor were they absent from the clergy.  Mainly due to marriages, the family began expanding to other regions of the Commonwealth.  One particular branch of this family at the end of the XVIII-century domiciled/settled in Volhynia/Wołyniu (currently part of Ukraine)."
 * On concerns regarding academia, Jerzy Zdrada is a professor at the University of Jagielloński. He authored the above passage.
 * everything provided above exists in the article. -- Exxess (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (as listing admin) above comment has been redacted by hiding some of the text; in edit mode this text is visible. All parties are requested to maintain civility and stay on-topic, which is this article and its subject's notability.  Refrain from importing bad faith assumptions and tangent issues. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Satisfying notability concerns regarding information regarding this particular family as a family, the following is widely available online: click here -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
 * I don't think many understand there are many unrelated people with the surname Dąbrowski. The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is one particular family. -- Exxess (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Second academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section:
 * Adam Józef Feliks Boniecki-Fredro, herbu Bończa; "Herbarz Polski - Część I.; Wiadomości Historyczno-Genealogiczne O Rodach Szlacheckich." (Warszawa, POLSKA: Skład główny Gebethner i Wolff w Warszawie, 1901), Volume IV, pages 147-148. (rough English translation):
 * "Dąbrowski, bearing the Polish Coat-of-Arms/Herb Radwan took their surname from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka under Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa, where other members of the family settled predominantly in the lands of Różan. The original surname/przydomek they used was "Żądło" (the Sting), prior to establishing the fixed surname/cognomen Dąbrowski derived from their patrimony/inheritance Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka."
 * I think once instance of notability is established here. The family is directly addressed. -- Exxess (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Third academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history as a branch of the Radwan gens/clan (They were Radwan/Radwanice first.):
 * Janusz Bieniak, "Knight Clans in Medieval Poland," in Antoni Gąsiorowski (ed.), The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages: Anthologies, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo; Wrocław, POLSKA; 1984, page 154.
 * "In Poland, the Radwanice were noted relatively early (1274) as the descendants of Radwan, a knight [more properly a "rycerz" {German "ritter"}] active a few decades earlier. ..."
 * Is this genealogy or history? The family is notable. -- Exxess (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fourth academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history from the Radwan gens/clan prior to becoming Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. This is receding far into history, and that's notable in itself.
 * Kasper Niesiecki S.J. (1682-1744) in his "Herbarz Polski" (with increased legal proofs and additions by Jan Nepomucen Bobrowicz [1805-1881] in the Leipzig editions, 1839-1846) writes:
 * "It [Radwan coat of arms] was awarded during the reign of King Boleslaw Smialy (1058-1079) on the occasion of a battle with Ruthenia; a captain named Radwan had been sent out on a foray with part of the army. He happened upon the enemy camp in such close quarters that they could neither protect themselves from a skirmish with the Ruthenians, nor fight with them, inasmuch as their numbers were so much smaller.  But they all agreed it was better to fall dead on the spot than to encourage the enemy by fleeing.  So with all their heart they sprang toward the Ruthenians, whose knights were daunted by this attack; but when they saw the small numbers against them, the Ruthenians grew bold, and not only took away their banner, but dispersed them as well.  Captain Radwan, wishing to encourage his men to fight once more, rushed to a nearby church, where he seized the church’s banner; he then gathered his men and courageously attacked the enemy.  The Ruthenians took this to mean a new army with fresh troops had joined the battle, and began to retreat and flee.  So Radwan’s banner carried the day, and for this he received that church’s banner for his shield, as well as other gifts.[35] Paprocki, however, gives this as occurring during the rule of Bolesław Chrobry [992-1025] in 1021.  He writes that Radwan was a royal chancellor, which information he is supposed to have taken from ancient royal grants.  I conclude from this that either this clan sign is more ancient than the time of Bolesław Śmiały [1058-1079] and originated in the time of Bolesław Krzywousty [1102-1138], to whom some authors ascribe its conferment on that aforementioned Radwan; or else that before the time of Bolesław Śmiały [1058-1079] the Radwans used some other arms in their seal: for instance, that Radwan whom Paprocki gives as Bishop of Poznań in 1138.  Długosz, in 'Vitae Episcop. Posnan. [Lives of the Bishops of Poznań]' does not include him under Radwan arms, but Sreniawa; there I, too, will speak of him."
 * Is this genealogy? Or is this history?  This deletion nomination is supposed to be about notability.  Problems like "peacock" language can be fixed with editing. -- Exxess (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, there may be some notable family members, but that doesn't mean there should be a full article on the family. Tavix (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the family is notable, the article should exist.  And justify that line of reasoning in the face of the Kennedy family article. -- Exxess (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not very difficult. Look at the article, and you'll see dozens of blue wikilinks, each pointing to an article on a notable Kennedy family member. But that sort of comparison is a red herring, per {{WP:WAX]]. As I said before (right below), we have one or two notable people in the Dabrowski article. That they go back a long time isn't in itself so notable, since every family does (though not always in a documented fashion, granted)--but not every family produces very many notable individuals, and let's face it, a family is really only notable in as much as its individual members lead notable lives. In comparison with the Kennedy family, the Dabrowski family simply cuts a very small figure. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability -- 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice."  Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'


 * The family is notable. If matters of degree and magnitude are a concern, the article can state, "a minor noble family.  I personally think minor noble familes of Poland are important as a subject in and of themselves, as they formed a highly patriotic element of Polish history, reflected in historical sources time and time again. -- Exxess (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see a very notable person, Jarosław Dąbrowski, who already has his article, and maybe one or two others. Then, there's a lot of historical background to names, status, etc., but much of it simply does not pertain, and does not attribute notability to the family as a whole. The section on Conrad, 1863, and Pilsudski is tenuous at best--if I understand it correctly, the Pilsudski connection, for instance, is that he was of impoverished gentry and an expert on the 1863 uprising which Jaroslaw D. had called for. That's establishing notability by proxy. Also, the famous family scions after emigration to the US, there is no claim of notability nor proof of it; the lead paragraph of that section again seems to want to establish notability for the family as a whole by making them part of a larger historical movement. I have to agree with the nominator: the family as a whole is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The family was related to Joseph Conrad by marriage, and Joseph Conrad's father and Jaroslaw Dabrowski planned an uprising that led to Joseph Conrad's father being exiled to Russia.  What's tenuous about that?  Marriage is a close tie.
 * Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, available worldwide, states on page 10:
 * "Przez żonę Piotra, Marię z Korzeniowskich, byli Dąbrowscy spowinowaceni ze znanym pisarzem JÓZEFEM KORZENIOWSKIM."
 * That's JOSEPH CONRAD. -- Exxess (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The family was part of a larger historical movement.  Emigration to the U.S.A. in the face of Russian oppression, which specifically targeted the Polish nobility because it was the patriotic element that could rise up.  And in the U.S.A., they found themselves at the bottom of the social ladder. -- Exxess (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that applies to thousands of other families. And the article actually says nothing about where they were at in the US. It gives two photographs and links to some birth certificates, that's it--and those people are not notable in their own right. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Correct.  I agree.  I think there are surmountable problems in the article, but in my mind, given the reference works provided, which cover the family per se in significant detail, and their documented and verifiable antiquity, the family itself is inherently notable.  That should not mean every single detail in the artice must be notable. -- Exxess (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the family is notable.  The name appears in widely-published, verifiable sources.  An article on the family would point others to those sources, or those sources might lead to a Google search, which would lead to Wikipedia, a useful cross-reference.  Given the concerns raised above, perhaps the article should weed out the non-notables, be more or less a brief mention of the family, with a section pointing to the Wikipedia articles on the notables.  I do believe that serves an Encyclopedic purpose. -- Exxess (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think WP is designed to work in the way you describe, and it seems to me that if the article were to be pared down, like a list or a dab page, you'd have very little left. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability -- 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice."  Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'  That being said, I think the family is worthy of notice by objective, verifiable standards. One should be able to click on Jarosław Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski's surname and be taken to an Encyclopedic article regarding his social/familial background.  The same applies to the other notable in the family, Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski h. Radwan (should be Żądło-Dąbrowski to be precise.)  The family does have notability claims, as they are noted in historical reference works dating back to the 11th century, if one understands the family emerged from the Radwan gens/clan to become a sept within that gens/clan distinguished by the surname Żądło-Dąbrowski. -- Exxess (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - noble families are notable, especially those, that can trace their roots to the uradel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are two clearly notable members of the family: The 19th century nationalist general Jarosław Dąbrowski, who already has an article, and Stefan Zygmunt Dąbrowski, the 20th century rector of Adam Mickiewicz University, who ought to have one. That's not enough to support this article, a clear violation of NOT genealogy. A very large percentage of the population of Poland was at one time nobility. DGG (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Highly debateable.  I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between genealogy and history, particularly a history extending to the 11th century, per verifiable sources.  The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged from the Radwan gens/clan. -- Exxess (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If genealogy is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, why does the article on the Kennedy family exist? That is explicitly genealogical.  Read it.  It states, "John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had 4 children:," and then goes on to list those children.  I hope the admin that is monitoring this deletion debate will take note of the blatant contradictions.  The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski is demonstrably notable, and it's incorrect to state "a clear violation of NOT genealogy" given the article on the Kennedy family, which is out-and-out genealogical. -- Exxess (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, due to insufficient, misleading quasi-citations hot-linked to advertisements by Amazon.com, WorldCat.org, and a blog at akson.sgh.waw.pl, with nothing to read at any of these specific webpages. Sufficient time has already been given to deal with peacock terms such as, that the family: "long served Poland in the struggle for Polish freedom and the right to exist as a sovereign nation". There are no links to prove any of this. --Poeticbent talk  06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting -- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:
 * "Surmountable problems -- Poorly written article -- Examples: -- * Delete It's not referenced properly – Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)


 * There are two common arguments concerning the current status of the writing of an article that are not generally considered to be reasons for deletion. These arguments comprise what are considered to be surmountable problems. The first is that the article is poorly written, and the second is has not been edited properly or recently." -- Exxess (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference sources in the form of books are available offline. User Petri Krohn has made the same observation, stating in the article history, "The given references are printed books, do not expect to be able to read them on worldcat.org or amazon.com!" -- Exxess (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you mention at akson.sgh.waw.pl has the following info. in it:
 * "Dąbrowski I -- Dąbrowa -- Piaseczno -- Radwan -- Żądło"


 * That is a reference to support this statement from the article:
 * "From Mazowsza, Poland, the old szlachta/noble family Żądło Dąbrowski bearing the Polish Coat-of-Arms/Herb Radwan took their surname from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka under Piaseczno"


 * You cited that as not in citation given -- READ! The reference cannot be made any clearer or more obvious. If one is referred to a page number in a book, the precise sentence(s) are not exactly spelled out.  One at times has to read the page.  Instead of a book page to read, you were given a web page. -- Exxess (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this deletion nomination about notability, or is this about content? The family is notable.  Edit the content. -- Exxess (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "peacock" language, it's right here. I have absolutely no idea why links are required when the books are available offline.  That's the purpose of the links.  To point to the books. -- Exxess (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerzy Zdrada, "JAROSŁAW DĄBROWSKI: 1836 -- 1871" (Kraków, POLSKA: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973), pages 9-10 (This book is not available online.  Go to a library to read it for verification purposes.  I obtained my copy at UCLA in Los Angeles.):
 * Quoting page 9:
 * "Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności.  Nigdy też nie dostąpili Dąbrowscy ważniejszych urzędów i godności, zadowalając się w latach istnienia Rzeczypospolitej komornictwami, skarbnikostwem, wojskostwem, miecznikostwem czy stolnikostwem.  Nie brak też było w rodzinie duchownych.  Rozrastającemu się rodowi Żądło-Dąbrowskich szybko zrobiło się ciasno na ubogim Mazowszu.  W ciągu XVI i XVII wieku zaczęto się przenosić, głównie dzięki małżeństwom, w inne zakątki Rzeczypospolitej.  Tym też sposobem jedna z gałęzi rodu Dąbrowskich w końcu XVIII wieku zakorzeniła się na Wołyniu."


 * Rough translation in English directly from the article.
 * "The family Dąbrowski originated from Mazowsza, most likely from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka below Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa. They were always nobility, belonging to the szlachta odwieczna or immemorial nobility, and in the armorials of Poland, documentation from the 15th century is used to note them.  Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family, and wealth came to other members (Szlachta zamożna/bene natus possessionatus et dominus) in certain periods.  The Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, but in the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's existence (First Rzeczpospolita, or Rzeczpospolita szlachecka – Nobles' Commonwealth/Republic), they served in office as chamberlains (komornictwami/princeps nobilitatis - formerly the Judge in boundary disputes), treasurers (skarbnikostwem), seneschal (wojskostwem/tribunus), sword-bearers (miecznikostwem), and pantlers (stolnikostwem).  Nor were they absent from the clergy.  Mainly due to marriages, the family began expanding to other regions of the Commonwealth.  One particular branch of this family at the end of the XVIII-century domiciled/settled in Volhynia/Wołyniu (currently part of Ukraine)."


 * Comment: The entire point of this article was if one goes to the Radwan coat of arms article, one sees a list of 284 surnames under the picture of the Radwan coat-of-arms. One should be able to click any of those surnames and be taken to an article about any particular family on that list, in my opinion.  That serves the purpose of an online Encyclopedia.  Those families listed are noted within Wikipedia itself.  They have self-established notability, so to speak, and they are a justifiable matter of inquiry.  Is that genealogy?  Or is that history?  I read the reasons for the Delete votes, which state this is a simple matter, but it's not, if one thinks it through.  There are lists of Polish coats of arms on Wikipedia, and one can click on links to individual articles explicating those arms.  I say the same thing should apply with the list of surnames in the Polish coat-of-arms articles.


 * This particular family, Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski, is notable and meets the guidelines in Notability in almost checklist fashion. It's so apparently obvious to me, I find this entire deletion nomination self-contradictory in the extreme, as far as notability is concerned.  They were notable enough that I found information on them in libraries in the first place.  The Wikipedia-is-not-genealogy objection cannot even be sustained in the face of the Kennedy family article, which is blatantly genealogical.


 * Regarding the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski article, fix the content in the article, fix the problems, but I remain unconvinced the family is not notable. The deletion nomination makes no sense on those grounds.   I think the Guide to deletion needed to be consulted first.  How many times does it need to be said?  Notability -- 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice."  Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'  Given the several academic sources provided above, whose authors obviously took note of the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family, it's difficult to fathom how anyone can seriously sustain that the family is not notable.  Maybe the family is only mildly notable, but notable they are, nonetheless. -- Exxess (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think in the face of the evidence, when considered, the deletion nomination is ill-conceived. The nominator based his determination of notability on Google hits.  The family is ancient, and no attempt was made to verify the offline sources provided, said sources demonstrating notability. -- Exxess (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per the previous discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far, this is basically what is being said in this debate, from what I'm reading.
 * Quoting: Inherent notability --
 * '3. I don't like it.  An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is "inherently not notable".  This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.
 * Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant. The standard way of demonstrating notability involves showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability.'


 * The article was admittedly nominated for deletion based on this: "Yes, the name of the family gives a few [G]hits..."
 * I think the admitted "Google-hits argument" demonstrates the capriciousness of this deletion nomination. The nominator thought a consensus would be quickly reached, and the article dismissed; but, what I'm seeing is:
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions -- "Repeated nominations -- If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.
 * If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article."


 * I don't think editors should have to deal with territorial gatekeepers, cited in Arbitration Requests, when it comes to English Wikipedia Poland.
 * This particular article has surmountable problems.
 * -- Exxess (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's going to become burdensome having to explain the social background of Stefan Tytus Dąbrowski h. Radwan, Jarosław Żądło-Dąbrowski h. Radwan, Teofil Żądło-Dąbrowski h. Radwan (Jarosław's brother) in three separate articles, filled with redundant information. There needs to be a small article for the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family itself, toned down from this version.  Given those three family members, it seems clear this family was highly patriotic and notable. -- Exxess (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family member, and somewhat of a scoundrel, Victor Dombrowsky (spelled that way by Italians), cited as related to generale Jaroslaw Dombrowsky, is noted in a contemporary Italian article written by Adriano Sofri and published by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore on their Web Site Panorama Online stating, "Il caso Sofri: Dopotutto 15 ottobre 1998" (The Sofri Case: Everything After October 15, 1998), where the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski's living in Warszawa are directly addressed in the header of the article as "una nobile famiglia di Varsavia" (one noble family of Warsaw). The family is notable. -- Exxess (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. My sentiment after reading through (twice) is that it is an article created by a single-purpose account for the glorification of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło clan by throwing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink at the topic (the "origin" of the name is a dissertation in and of itself!) and practicing everyone is notable merely by blood or association with truly notable individuals. Associations do not make one notable. In principle, I have no objection to articles on one or two truly notable individuals, but that does not translate to the entire clan being notable, nor does it justify the over the top treatment accorded in the article. PetersV    TALK 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the intent... Quoting myself, again.


 * QUOTE: "I've dedicated the time to researching this particular noble Polish family, which was a result of reading about Jarosław Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło in James H. Billington's book FIRE IN THE MINDS OF MEN: ORIGINS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY FAITH.  This peculiar Dąbrowski keeps making appearances in the historical record in many other works, as does his brother (not discussed in my Wikipedia article).  I myself personally would like to see Wikipedia entries and links for each remaining family under the Radwan Coat-of-Arms, as well as all the other noble Polish families under the remaining Polish Coat-of-Arms appearing in Wikipedia.  To be precise, the szlachta were the Polish nation (until the time of the Partitions), to the exclusion of the other estates in Poland, lawfully speaking, which explains the szlachta's legal franchises, rights, and privileges, despite great differences in wealth and social standing amongst the szlachta, peasants sometimes in command of greater wealth than particular members of the szlachta, but peasants without the same legal franchises, rights, and privileges.  Also, I think this particular article discussing the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family is essentially more than a mere discussion of which szlachta were related to each other.  The significance is in this fact using Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski herbu Radwan as an example -- Dąbrowski's family was a fundamental influence on his life, which included growing up in an atmosphere of patriotism in the environs of Warsaw at the end of the nineteenth century, emphasis from the above on FAMILY, FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE, ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM.  In my mind, this is so patently obvious, hence this article demonstrating just that -- FAMILY (nobility), FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE (szlachta leading the charge for Polish independence, sovereignty, honor, and freedom, not always, but often), and ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM." -- Exxess (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Aaah, the old canard, the apotheosis of the szlachta versus the truly righteous and deserving, but neglected, peasants. Myself, I don't see any apotheosis in this particular article, but I do see revealed the motives for the wanting of a speedy deletion now coming to light, as I suspected.  Regarding the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family, I quote:  "Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family..."  That to me does not sound at all like any apotheosis.  This article is an explication of the social milieu reflected in a peculiar patriotic noble Polish family.  How that disparages peasants or peasant patriotism I fail to see.  Read the article clearly.  Apollo Nałęcz Korzeniowski, a Polish nobleman, and Jarosław Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło, a Polish nobleman, wanted Polish independence and sovereignty, accompanied by social revolution, meaning the emancipation of the peasants.  I dispute your statement suggesting impoverished nobles who possessed Coat-of-Arms were peasants, strictly speaking.  In law they were not.  Norman Davies goes on about this, how despite degradation, the petty nobleman did not lose noble status or their legal rights.  SEE pages 229-30 of his GOD'S PLAYGROUND: A HISTORY OF POLAND, VOLUME I, THE ORIGINS TO 1795. -- Exxess (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * "Regarding Jan Kiliński, I for one would like to see a Wikipedia article on the Kiliński family, beginning with their origins to the present day. Too many confuse the social estates with socio-economic classes and wealth, and each social estate (Crown, clergy, nobleman, burgher, Jew, and peasant) has a history worth exploring, but the fact of the matter is, mobility between the estates was difficult, and wealth counted less than law, heredity, and custom.  Attempts to understand Polish history outside this context, instead relying on ideology and idealism, are a detriment to the truth of the matter. -- Exxess (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * -- Exxess (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any third-party reliable sources that actually discuss the family as such. We shouldn't be constructing an original-research history of a family from sources that only discuss its individual members. At the very least, I would expect that if the family were notable as a family, at least one published history book would contain the phrase "the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family", but I cannot find any such book. --Delirium (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Check here. I think this qualifies as a published history book that contains the phrase "the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family" as absolutely direct as possible, in Polish, of course:


 * Adam Józef Feliks Boniecki-Fredro, herbu Bończa; "Herbarz Polski - Część I.; Wiadomości Historyczno-Genealogiczne O Rodach Szlacheckich." (Warszawa, POLSKA: Skład główny Gebethner i Wolff w Warszawie, 1901), Volume IV, pages 147-148.


 * You will find several others. Check and verify the article's reference section.


 * Again, in my mind, this is a debate about inherent notability being not notabile.


 * I thought this qualified as historically significant and notable and direct. The year 1274 is very early.  This is a direct statement about the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family before they began using the patrynomic surname Dąbrowski (from their estate).  Before this they were part of the Radwan gens/clan, and their surname was technically Żądło.  The family is directly addressed here, yet again:


 * Janusz Bieniak, "Knight Clans in Medieval Poland," in Antoni Gąsiorowski (ed.), The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages: Anthologies, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo; Wrocław, POLSKA; 1984, page 154.
 * "In Poland, the Radwanice were noted relatively early (1274) as the descendants of Radwan, a knight [more properly a "rycerz" {German "ritter"}] active a few decades earlier. ..." -- Exxess (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. DGG said it best - WP is not a genealogy, and having one or two notable members doesn't make the entire family notable. Nobility by itself isn't a guarantee of notability.  Graymornings {{sub| (talk) }} 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on nobility CLEARY STATES: 'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...' -- Exxess (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well, I'm personally fond of the dissertation on the origin of the name, given the Devil is in the details. Maybe information of that type could've been merged into the Szlachta article, or a new article created addressing old Polish szlachta/noble families in general.  This is what was being attempted in the article -- an explication of the social milieu reflected in a peculiar patriotic noble Polish family, with all the attendant rises and falls in fortune.  Too broad for an Encyclopedia article, and maybe a better topic for a novel or a monograph on the family... -- Exxess (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete—for the reasons so eloquently stated above. Indeed, nobility does not automatically translate into notability. And a notable individual's membership in a group (e.g., a family) does not automatically make that group notable. Nihil novi (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am appealing to have this entire deletion nomination invalidated for the following reason. The user above, linking to nobility, nonetheless, says nobility does not automatically translate into notability.  In direct and unequivocal refutation, the article on nobility clearly states:


 * 'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...'


 * As I've stated, the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is widely-published and directly addressed in many verifiable third-party sources as being noble -- sources I have made great effort to provide. I will appeal this deletion nomination.  The subject of the article is inherently notable by definition, particularly a family with a lineage documented to antiquity (immemorial nobility).  The deletion nomination makes no sense on those grounds, and is self-contradictory in the extreme, something I stated in the first deletion attempt, which failed.  At worst, the article has surmountable problems, but the subject itself is inherently notable.  Call it a CliffsNote or a footnote, but it's a note and notable, nonetheless. -- Exxess (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the notablity of the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is nearly equivalent to the Chołodecki family's notability. The Chołodecki article is a pleasure to read and is very informative, providing much insight into a segment of Polish society. -- Exxess (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2009 (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.