Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomasz Jędrowski


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tomasz Jędrowski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

nnonnotable author whose debut book made a bit of blip. Notabilityu claim is WP:SINGLEEVENT; notability should be WP:NOTINHERITED. All references are book reviews, and the author is mentioned in passing, with minimal detail, mostly related to the book and its writing. Staszek Lem (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  Glee anon 19:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:AUTHOR #4 (c) "The person's work (or works) . . . has won significant critical attention" --and by no means entirely or even mostly, as one user implied, in LGBT media. Many authors of one novel have wiki entries, John Kennedy Toole a good example. ping User:Nihil novi and User:Sadads - could I ask you all to weigh in on whether an author of one novel that receives widespread review in mainstream media may not stay? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move with a "redirect" to Swimming in the Dark, way too soon for an article on this author who does not (yet?) meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR (i do not agree that the novel is "significant", if book awards are won though), but can have an "author" section in their wikinotable novel article (to be broken out when Jędrowski achieves more). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR (multiple reviews of his book). I think it makes more sense to have the article at his name rather than the book title because his personal background is significantly discussed by sources, but either way, it should not be deleted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets GNG. I found:
 * Cook, L., Eppen, M., West, L., Lewis, M., Vagg, M., Woledge, M., ... & Grace, J. (2020). Fiction {Book Review}. Good Reading, (Apr 2020), 36.
 * Taras, R. (2020). World Literature Today, 94(2), 88-89. doi:10.7588/worllitetoda.94.2.0088a
 * I’m sure more is available. I agree this should stay as a BLP and let the book section grow here.  Glee anon 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per The Guardian, Vice, and The Sydney Morning Herald, quite easily found, among others. Right cite (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am still a bit iffy with this per WP:ONEEVENT. As I said before, his book is notable, and soft redirecting this article to the article about the book, and rstoring it once he publishes something else that also generates coverage, may be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we have a good article already why bother?  Glee anon 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When working up the piece, I avoided politics, but the establishment in Poland of LGBT-free zones and pres Duda's comment that “LGBT ideology” is “more harmful than Communism” both give the writer and the book additional relevance in the way, for example, that “To Kill a Mockingbird” (another one-book author until the year of her death) would not have been as widely read had it not reflected the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Nigetastic (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s reasonable context to add but to avoid coatracking and synthesis you have to use sources that cite him in relation to that content. Otherwise leave it out.  Glee anon 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice's article is mostly about the political context of Jedrowski's writing the novel just now. (The idea wasn't mine.) My intention was to keep the article narrowly focused on the world of letters. But if the suggestion is that the article as-is doesn't have enough relevance, a sentence about the novel's past and contemporary political dimension citing the Vice article might resolve the relevance objection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the article is likely safe. I would go ahead and add relevant context as it serves the reader understand the subject.  Glee anon 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional paragraph, something brisk that puts the author's work into some wider cultural and political context. I hewed closely to the three citations (Vice, WaPo, the Economist, no LBGT specialty periodicals) that I used. As always, I'm flexible about the wording. With hope this illuminates why the author and this debut novel got an unusual amount of attention and settles any qualms about the novelist's relevance.Nigetastic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sure more is available. I agree this should stay as a BLP and let the book section grow here.  Glee anon 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per The Guardian, Vice, and The Sydney Morning Herald, quite easily found, among others. Right cite (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am still a bit iffy with this per WP:ONEEVENT. As I said before, his book is notable, and soft redirecting this article to the article about the book, and rstoring it once he publishes something else that also generates coverage, may be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we have a good article already why bother?  Glee anon 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When working up the piece, I avoided politics, but the establishment in Poland of LGBT-free zones and pres Duda's comment that “LGBT ideology” is “more harmful than Communism” both give the writer and the book additional relevance in the way, for example, that “To Kill a Mockingbird” (another one-book author until the year of her death) would not have been as widely read had it not reflected the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Nigetastic (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s reasonable context to add but to avoid coatracking and synthesis you have to use sources that cite him in relation to that content. Otherwise leave it out.  Glee anon 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice's article is mostly about the political context of Jedrowski's writing the novel just now. (The idea wasn't mine.) My intention was to keep the article narrowly focused on the world of letters. But if the suggestion is that the article as-is doesn't have enough relevance, a sentence about the novel's past and contemporary political dimension citing the Vice article might resolve the relevance objection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the article is likely safe. I would go ahead and add relevant context as it serves the reader understand the subject.  Glee anon 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional paragraph, something brisk that puts the author's work into some wider cultural and political context. I hewed closely to the three citations (Vice, WaPo, the Economist, no LBGT specialty periodicals) that I used. As always, I'm flexible about the wording. With hope this illuminates why the author and this debut novel got an unusual amount of attention and settles any qualms about the novelist's relevance.Nigetastic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sure more is available. I agree this should stay as a BLP and let the book section grow here.  Glee anon 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per The Guardian, Vice, and The Sydney Morning Herald, quite easily found, among others. Right cite (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am still a bit iffy with this per WP:ONEEVENT. As I said before, his book is notable, and soft redirecting this article to the article about the book, and rstoring it once he publishes something else that also generates coverage, may be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we have a good article already why bother?  Glee anon 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When working up the piece, I avoided politics, but the establishment in Poland of LGBT-free zones and pres Duda's comment that “LGBT ideology” is “more harmful than Communism” both give the writer and the book additional relevance in the way, for example, that “To Kill a Mockingbird” (another one-book author until the year of her death) would not have been as widely read had it not reflected the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Nigetastic (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s reasonable context to add but to avoid coatracking and synthesis you have to use sources that cite him in relation to that content. Otherwise leave it out.  Glee anon 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice's article is mostly about the political context of Jedrowski's writing the novel just now. (The idea wasn't mine.) My intention was to keep the article narrowly focused on the world of letters. But if the suggestion is that the article as-is doesn't have enough relevance, a sentence about the novel's past and contemporary political dimension citing the Vice article might resolve the relevance objection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the article is likely safe. I would go ahead and add relevant context as it serves the reader understand the subject.  Glee anon 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional paragraph, something brisk that puts the author's work into some wider cultural and political context. I hewed closely to the three citations (Vice, WaPo, the Economist, no LBGT specialty periodicals) that I used. As always, I'm flexible about the wording. With hope this illuminates why the author and this debut novel got an unusual amount of attention and settles any qualms about the novelist's relevance.Nigetastic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s reasonable context to add but to avoid coatracking and synthesis you have to use sources that cite him in relation to that content. Otherwise leave it out.  Glee anon 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice's article is mostly about the political context of Jedrowski's writing the novel just now. (The idea wasn't mine.) My intention was to keep the article narrowly focused on the world of letters. But if the suggestion is that the article as-is doesn't have enough relevance, a sentence about the novel's past and contemporary political dimension citing the Vice article might resolve the relevance objection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the article is likely safe. I would go ahead and add relevant context as it serves the reader understand the subject.  Glee anon 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional paragraph, something brisk that puts the author's work into some wider cultural and political context. I hewed closely to the three citations (Vice, WaPo, the Economist, no LBGT specialty periodicals) that I used. As always, I'm flexible about the wording. With hope this illuminates why the author and this debut novel got an unusual amount of attention and settles any qualms about the novelist's relevance.Nigetastic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (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.