Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryszard Frąckiewicz


 * 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 no consensus. Unfortunately, the sources found by Goldsztajn, which appear pertinent, have not been discussed. The rest of the discussion ist mostly guesswork.  Sandstein  18:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryszard Frąckiewicz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested PROD; appears to be a non-notable diplomat. A WP:BEFORE search provided little, and while there are a lot of references in the Polish Wikipedia article, these are primarily just list of who was an ambassador to what, with nothing seeming to provide WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Japan, Poland,  and Australia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable. Google newspapers just shows routine coverage and nothing in depth. LibStar (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'd disagree that ambassadors of sovereign nations are not inherently notable. Added some references from the Polish Wikipedia. There are likely more references out there in Polish sources, so it's worth keeping this article until it can be proven those sources aren't obtainable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first sentence, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the general consensus that has been reached is that ambassadors are not granted the inherent notability that WP:NPOL confers to, say, a legislator or a cabinet minister. Additionally, the onus is to prove that sources exist; I could not find any providing WP:SIGCOV with a thorough search. Regardless, thanks for transferring the sources from pl.wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)**
 * Consensus can change over time and I would also disagree with the premise of the essay you referenced in that an article should not be deleted if it can be cleaned up or expanded. Otherwise, it will just be recreated later from scratch when it could be brought up to the encyclopedia's standards without having to be recreated. I also appreciate your efforts as well and I am not saying this article should be indefinitely kept, only that it be given some time for people who know more about this subject than you or I to exhaust all possibilities of making this subject into something worthy of keeping. If that opportunity occurs and improvement still cannot happen, I would join your opinion here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'd disagree that ambassadors of sovereign nations are not inherently notable. " At least 70 ambassador articles have been deleted, the community consensus is clear on their inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the article sees more significant improvement than I'm equipped to give it. Indeed Wikipedia does have a consensus that diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing to be considered notable enough for an article — but the references here aren't really notability-supporting or GNG-worthy sources, but comprise mainly directory listings and primary sources, and even the one that seems more substantial on the surface, because it links to the first page of a 50-page book chapter, still actually just entails a glancing namecheck of Ryszard Frąckiewicz in a directory listing rather than substantive analytical coverage. The key to making a diplomat notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to offer simple verification that he existed, it's to offer substantive and well-sourced content about the real world impact of his work — specific accomplishments he attained in the job, specific effects he had on the diplomatic relationships between Poland and the countries he was ambassador to, etc. — but that's not at all evident from this article or its sourcing. As I can't read Polish, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have the ability to read Polish can extract considerably more substance from Polish language sources — but nothing here is notable enough as it stands right now. And we also don't keep articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually found — once notability has been challenged, you have to show definitive proof that the sourcing needed to salvage the article definitely exists rather than just maybe. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I thought that ambassadors were inherently notable by the virtue of their possitions. WP:OUTCOMES does say otherwise, however (although that's a page with a format that needs updating - who added that conclusion there?). Sourcing is weak, there are passing mentions but little SIGCOV. Here is a one-sentence incomplete biography footnote. Something more substantial and in English appears here, bu it could be self-written author's biography blurb, hard to tell from the snippet. Weak delete since I find User:Bearcat's argument convincing and no sources to challenge him. PS. I'll ping User:Niegodzisie, an editor whom I consider an expert in the area of Polish officials, for his opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frąckiewicz served twice as an ambassador: to Australia and Japan. Apart from that, he was charge d'affaires to the United States. Heading embassies in three important (including the most one) capitalist countries during the time of communist Poland, he should be considered among top Polish diplomats of 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, we can only assume about media coverage (which should have been sufficient) because he ended his career ca 30 years ago and Polish newspapers of that period are not digitized. He is mentioned among 4 most notable persons on the cemetery he rests on. Btw, I have improved the article. Niegodzisie (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - But Piotrus, what about that snippet of English biography you found? Maybe it's not self-written? Should we just ignore it? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I admit without checking the book in question in a library, it's a tough call. It's from 1978, he would be what, 47 then? Yeah, it could be by him, or not, double sigh. Hence my "weak" qualifier. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the sourcing, it does not appear to be significant to pass WP:GNG. As Bearcat mentions, an expectation is that the article consists more of "they exist" by describing some of their specific accomplishments or impact on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep His posting in Australia was contemporaneous with the emergence of Solidarity and the marshal law period. He appeared not infrequently in the Australian media of the period; extensive, in-depth, background piece from Canberra Times 1979, Refusal to answer questions on possible defection, Canberra Times, 1981, Refusal to accept petition in support of imprisoned Solidarity leaders, Australian Jewish News 1982. Somewhat interesting factoid, the announcement of the 1983 Australian federal election was delayed because the country's governor-general was lunching with Frąckiewicz and the Prime Minister had to wait before he could advise the GG to dissolve parliament. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2022 (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.