Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanisław Krysicki (2nd 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. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Stanisław Krysicki
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPERSON - being a military officer during WW2 is laudable but unfortunately is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Nor is being mentioned in a single book about former military officers, as NPERSON requires significant coverage in multiple published sources.

See also here: —  kashmiri  TALK  23:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. 8 years ago I voted weak delete. Reconsidering other keep arguments, and my understanding of the guidelines today, I'd vote delete, but that said he seems to have been subject to relatively in-depth (several pagraphs or more) coverage in one book and one likely reliable trade magazine/journal (of Polish lawyers), through the latter is probably an obituary. Borderline, but now leaning keep. (And I started writing this content as leaning delete). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of little help in my view: "several paragraphs in one book" falls badly short of  significant coverage in multiple published sources required by NPERSON. — kashmiri  TALK  07:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best as there's nothing to suggest there's the availability of substantially better here and my searches have at least found nothing, delete as there's simply nothing minimally convincing and there's certainly not going to be any new information. SwisterTwister   talk  23:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: unfortunately I'm not seeing that the requirements for significant coverage are met. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not seeing significant RS coverage, per Google books search results. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.