Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teofilia Ludwika Zasławska


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Teofilia Ludwika Zasławska

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable: no significant coverage in independent sources Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her first name was Teofila. She was a member of a notable Polish noble family, the Polish king John III Sobieski was her uncle. The Polish article is well developed and cites a good source, monography of the Wiśniowieckis (her husband's family). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could expand this article to demonstrate her notability?Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable, part of the Polish royal family. There's plenty of sources . Volunteer Marek 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this an English language Wikipeida and you cannot assume that the reader can read Polish in order to verify the citation. Not that I doubt you, but since I can't read Polish, how do I know that the citation states what is claimed? Furthermore, Wikipedia notes "As for the rest, it is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might only be available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects." Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Relation to a notable person is not by itself sufficient for notability, per Notability_(people). Is there any material available in English that could be used to support independent notability? 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkharrisjr (talk • contribs) (!vote by nominator struck through here as duplicative. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
 * "Material in English" is not necessary. Just reliable sources. Which we have. Seriously, she was a significant person related to several significant persons and families. Also, check the more extensive entry at pl-wiki. Volunteer Marek 20:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may disagree with my rationale, but please do not strike out my vote.Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your !vote here does get struck, because your nomination counts as a !vote, and you are not allowed to !vote twice. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note, the vote above was cast by the nominator himself, User:Wkharrisjr, who also intentionally made the article look less adequate with his final copy edit. Wkharrisjr removed all words meant to give additional context and enhance the political significance of family members, and he also intentionally garbled internal links to heraldic emblems. For example, the link to Janina coat of arms became Janina – a city in north-western Greece; the link to Ostrogski coat of arms became Ostrogski – a double redirect to generic name, and so on. I would like to ask Wkharrisjr to please, refrain from making disruptive edits to articles which you nominate, in order to defend your position. Poeticbent talk  05:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my intent was not to amke the article to look less notable but to clean up the article so that if it remained it would be more inline with Wikipedia standards. The Wikilnk to Janina coat of arms was removed because it made no sense: "She was the daughter of Katarzyna Sobieska of Janina coat of arms, "makes no sense. My fault was that I assumed that Janina would link to the family and not a town in Greece- I should have checked before making that link but I do not apologize for trying to make a sentence sensible. Likewise for the link to Ostrogski. Rahter than a blanket revert, perhaps you could reword these sentences so that they will make sense? As to removing the additional context, my goal was to pare out material not directly relavent to the subject of the article. As to whether the article remains or not, I am ambivalent, but I am just asking the community at large as to wheter she is truly notable for her own achievements or notable for being related to someone notable, which is doesn't meet the Wikipeida threshold for notability. Reference in a foreign language does not help an non Polish speaker understand the context of her accomplishments. Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further comment. For the second time, user Wkharrisjr botched the article with his partisan editing. Nothing works and nothing makes sense, including the internal link to Ordination] which he badly re-formatted to make it appear amateurish and useless. He reverted a lot of the copy back to his own prior POV version for no reason other than to disrupt the process. Please stop it, or just take this article off you watchlist. [[User:Poeticbent|Poeticbent talk 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are taking my edits as an attempt to insert my POV unless you consider trying to make the article clearer to a non-Pole> I have already conceded that the article meets ntoability, expecially with the additional content added since I first nominated the article. I was attempting to clarify the inheritance process (from what I could discern) and the recent re-edit by User:Piotrus I think made things even clearer and certainly made the reason for notability more obvious. Although you may be upset about my initial nomination, I think we can both agree that the process has led to a stronger and better article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, an important character in Polish history. I added some supporting info to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did a small expansion using readily available i-links. Poeticbent talk
 * Keep This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encylopedia of the English language speaking world. References to sources in languages other than English are entirely acceptable to establish notability, although English sources are preferable when readily available to choose from. A topic covered in reliable, independent sources in other languages is notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia even if English sources on the topic are lacking.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Member of a major noble family, related to royalty, and she did stuff, as witnessed in our article, and the larger Polish one. Noble politics and intrigue, but that does make her notable. Last but not least, I've added a note that she was "the fifth ordinate of the Ostrogski Ordination." (pl:Ordynacja Ostrogska). That's a notable position - case closed.


 * Could you then incorporate the material in the Polish version of Wikipedia (translated into English, of course)? Someone who does not read Poloish has to assume that this person is not notable based on what they can read. Note that I am not objecting to retaining the article, per se, but to the non-Polish reader (and this is the English Wikipedia, so one must assume the reader cannot read Polish) cannot see the notability of this person. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added what I consider sufficient (her ordynat title). It is linked, and the readers and editors can follow the appropriate links to those articles. While I could expand the article, I frankly prefer to spend my times on more important entries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not familiar with Polish inheritance laws. I infer from your edit that she was the fifth person to which the property was passed onto- is this correct? If so, I will try to edit it to make it clearer to the casual reader. And why not expend the article? If it is, as you argue, important enough to be included in Wikipedia, why not expand it to demonstrate its importance? Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see if there are any sources I can find, might as well try to DYK this. But I do think it is notable as it is, as any ordynat person (heir to ordynacja) is, IMHO, notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I think it is obvious we will keep the article, and it has been sufficiently expanded, I've nominated it for Template:Did you know nominations/Teofila Ludwika Zasławska. Thank you to all who helped, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Royalty are notable. Sctechlaw (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2012 (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.