Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sokoloski


 * 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. Apologies to the RA. czar 22:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Sokoloski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a page for a professor, made by one his resident assistants. The professor is not very notable at all outside of the university. A quick search can prove this. Do not remove this template until conclusion. Jodamaster (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * delete - fails WP:BIO. See also this.  If true, (if) that is really ugly, paradigmatic abuse of authority in academia.  Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As the research assistant in question, I absolutely do not disagree with either Jytdog or David Eppstein, now that I know what WP:BIO and WP:PROF are. Conflict of interest aside, the original reason for deletion was lack of relevance/credible sources. Now that I've understood the difference, for the sake of argument, he's discussed here: http://www.ottawa.msz.gov.pl/en/news/on_polish_1980s_immigrants__fate_in_ottawa http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-06-27/html/gh-rg-eng.php http://www.goniec.net/goniec/inne-dzialy/zycie-polonijne/ciekawe-bo-o-nas.html (Though the last one is in Polish) In the unlikely event that I ever need to make a Wikipedia article again, would those be considered examples of credible sources? I'm not arguing against deletion, I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. Aniem045 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Aniem045
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF; there's the Polish knighthood but I'm not convinced that's enough, and there's not much else. On top of that the autobiography-by-proxy thing is a big problem. (By the way, it's research assistant, not resident assistant). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)s
 * There's a difference between sources that can be considered reliable to support the facts that they are listed as references for, and sources whose existence supports the notability of an article's subject (see also WP:RS and WP:GNG). So the first two (government) sources are very credible for factual material but I think they would not have much weight for notability. The third source, goniec.net, appears to be a news magazine for the Polish-Canadian community? So it carries more weight for notability, but is still somewhat specialized (coverage in a major Canadian newspaper such as the Globe & Mail would be far more convincing) and doesn't have a lot of depth of coverage of Sokoloski, another factor that is important when considering whether a source is helpful for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. (I'll try to ignore the circumstances surrounding the article's creation, but it is troubling.) I don't see a demonstration of notability. Nothing obvious pops out to satisfy WP:PROF. The Officer's Cross is the 4th class award of the Order of Merit -- not significant enough. I'm also not convinced the Medal of National Education proves notability -- and it's worth noting that the reference given in the article does not mention Sokoloski getting such an award. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing convincing for applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above and can't find anything in Polish wiki. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG as the article is a short stub with a few lines which doesn't make "a credible claim of significance". My searches found nothing better. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  11:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of 5, doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2016 (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.