Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zbigniew Nowosadzki


 * 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 to delete, default to keep, but verging on delete. We only have a few brief mentions of his expositions in the press, and nothing substantial. This article should be reconsidered some time later if no more coverage appears. Sandstein 09:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Nowosadzki

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously tagged with speedy for failing WP:NN and contested - now up for community discussion -- VS talk 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is too little media coverage about Mr Nowosadzki to justify an article on Wikipedia IMO. A handful of mainstream Polish media mention him, but all rehash the same short biography. There are no interviews that I can find. Plus, the article is a mess (grammar, links, editing). --Targeman 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep, He is a notable Polish painter, He has an article in Polish Wikipedia, I have cleaned up his article a bit. We had a similar AfD last week on Antonio de la Rua, where I believe most of us agreed that if someone is notable in another wikipedia he is notable.  This painter also has references. Callelinea 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If a 'handful of mainstream polish media mention him' then that's multiple independent sources and therefore good enough isn't it? Nick mallory 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Callelinea.--JForget 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I took the time to investigate this matter in depth and I'm still not convinced about this painter's notability. This is what I found:
 * When I said "mentioned in mainstream media", I meant "mentioned by name only in a list of painters participating in an exhibition". The media are mainstream but don't include any of the quality daily papers.
 * I wouldn't base my notability assessment on the fact that another Wikipedia has the same article. The one on the Polish Wikipedia was written and edited by a single anonymous user. And even that article does not say "prominent painter".
 * The group of Emotionalist painters to which Mr Nowosadzki belongs is a small group of Polish expatriates and has almost zero coverage beyond the website mentioned in the article (7 hits on Google). "Via Varsovia" is a group locally known in Poland but has had zero coverage abroad. Neither of these groups has its own website.
 * There is no trace of Mr Nowosadzki ever winning any major or minor prize for his paintings.
 * To conclude, Mr Nowosadzki appears to be mainly an art gallery owner and not so much an artist himself (although I personally like his style...) I suspect the article on Polish Wiki may have been written by himself or by an acquaintance. The registered but otherwise inactive user on English Wiki might be the same person. But I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong.--Targeman 01:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to mention: coverage abroad is completely irrelevant. Were Mr. Nowosadzki completely unknown outside Poland, had his name never been heard by anyone outside his home country, he'd still be notable were he notable in Poland. I'm not sure if he is, but I don't think Google hits are terribly useful for an artist in Poland in the first place. -- Charlene 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, the thing is he doesn't seem notable in Poland at all. I speak Polish and I did a search in the archives of the main Polish papers, and on the largest Polish search engine. Nada, beyond the website of a gallery where you can actually buy his paintings. So yes, he exists, and he paints (and pretty well IMHO) but is not renowned by any stretch, AFAIK. --Targeman 01:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially with the thesis that foreign language Wikipedias could not be reliable source of information. I don't know much about another but Polish which definitely is not. If you understand some Polish, go to Polish version of Hanna Banaszak. There is in there a completely false accusation based on rumours that she was bedding the discredited former PM Mieczysław Rakowski, one of the authors of introducing the martial law in Poland back in the early 80s. This note inserted without a single reference is aimed to scoff at this great artist by the brats who are running Polish Wiki. Let's make experiment. Give me a couple of minutes and I label this article with POV and the explanation that Wikipedia is not a place to place rumours. I bet ten bucks that in less than twenty minutes that label will be removed singlehandedly by one of the administartors while the rumour stays, and there is a chance that I'll be warned that the next time I dared such a challenge I would be blocked for aggresion or vandalism. May I count you in, buddy? greg park avenue 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You owe me 10 bucks :). Yes, the article on Banaszak is an aberration, but I wouldn't bash Polish Wiki just for that, I'd say on the quality of their articles is not worse than in other languages. And I think Polish Wikipedia may be the largest in the world (number of articles per native speaker - but I don't feel like counting...). All I wanted to say is that the existence of an article on another Wikipedia is not a guarantee of legitimacy per se. --Targeman 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, you won. Just sent me by email (provided on my user page) your postal address where to sent 10 bucks. Now is another bet, twenty bucks for the same thing - POV on the Polish version of the article Poznań 1956 protests. For the controversy about the reasons of the uprising. The brats claim, that Poznanians rioted because they were raised by Prussians according to their rule 'Ordnung muss sein' - an obvious communist propaganda. I claim being a Poznanian myself that we are not that 'porzundni' and never had been, otherwise this event would never happened. For labeling this article POV once and stating my reasons I was banned and the POV was removed by the brats. But before I do that, risking banning again, I want to know if you're sport and take the bet. If I lose again and that section would be removed (not before) which I would like to happen I'll owe you 30 bucks, if you loose, you owe me only ten. Is that fair enough? greg park avenue 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not a good sport. Let's stay on topic.--Targeman 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Que sorry? The topic is No vote → Weak keep, → Keep for Nowosadzki as per last reference I have submitted (today's issue of the Polish national daily includes the print of the painting by Zbigniew Nowosadzki Obrazy i Pokusy meaning The Paintings and the Temptations and an independent opinion). I only hope I won't be left going up the creek without paddle again after two experts on painting gave "no go". No hard evidence on any single painting, just the info about his exhibition. It's like buying cat in a bag, because his paintings may not be notable. I still don't know where to mail the $10 check/cash, for some people from Poland it's still a a lot of bread, 'Mr No good sport'! greg park avenue 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above, notable Polish person. (jarbarf) 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless further material evidencing notability added, per Targeman. The external link to the Polish WP didn't work, so I have removed it. Johnbod 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Link now works.Callelinea 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Targeman Modernist 22:31, 15 July 2007 (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.