Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zygmunt kubasiak


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Zygmunt kubasiak

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

My apologies to the creator, but this person does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards--no references are included, and I cannot find any in the usual ways (Google News and Books). Drmies (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject translated several books and made several paitings. That's the only claim in the article verifiable by secondary sources. It isn't enough to meet the notability requirements. The article doesn't explain why are his works notable and important. Btw, the paintings are not bad, a nice mixture of cubism and naïve art. Kubasiak is a skilled illustrator. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No Delete  I've been following "be bold" and "break the rules" Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not the Encyclopaedia in a traditional sense. May be a special appendix for unknowns should be opened, to protect hosts of poets, artists and other modest contributors to the tank of global civilisation. Anyway, I am strongly convinced that the subject's art is worth noticing,blending modern trends with ancient and ethnic traditions in a very individual way (labeling him as illustrator is biased), but as he is an extremely reclusive person he'll never in his life produce enough "notability" to be included in any public storage of data.User:tnumgyz13:30,31 August 2010
 * I'm afraid it is impossible to open an "appendix for unknowns" here. You are right, Wiki is not an encyclopaedia in a traditional sense, however, it must have firmly formulated rules to prevent its turning into another MySpace or Facebook. Verifiability and notability are among the most important rules here and in my opinion your subject doesn't meet them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect, in case of a visual artist the utmost proof of verifiability is the body of their own work. No books, articles or other media can replace it. Only the opinions of the value of their art can differ. The article is then verifiable, since such artist exists and his work is available to be seen by anybody who is willing to. What else can be expected. As for notability the rule goes: "Article topics must be notable, or worthy of notice. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance..." user:tnumgyz14:19, 31 August 2010
 * You are confusing existence with notability. "...the utmost proof of verifiability is the body of their own work" is not a well-formed sentence, since verifiability itself is proof. What matters is that the importance of a given artist and their work can be verifiably established using reliable sources--that's the rules on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable artist. — Kpalion(talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I am not interested in keeping this article in Wikipedia by all means but in the arguments of my opponents."You are confusing existence with notability". Clearly biased opinion. The article concerns an artist who created a large body of work and not just a man who merely "exists". I'd like to see more substance in criticism, like why the work of that artist is not "worthy of notice". Until now the user confuses notability with popularity. Then the question of reliable sources. In case of a writer the ultimate source are his books, in case of an artist his artwork. I'm not going to claim that my subject is famous and pile references to press coverage, Tv programmes and lexicon entries.This kind of verifiability has for an artist secondary importance. My next opponent must be very busy. "Non-notable artist".And that's all? Shouldn't we support our subjective views with some arguments? User:Tnumgyz 12:50 1 Sept. 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I can assure you that I've created a "large body of artwork" (songs, poems, performances etc.), but I'm still not notable per Wikipedia requirements. Please read the requirements before introducing your theories. For Wikipedia, the press coverage and lexicon entries (in other words the coverage published by secondary sources) is of primary value. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And let me rephrase, then: "You are confusing the existence of a possibly large body of work with the notability of said body of work." The only reason we have to assume that the claims in the article are true and that the artist is relevant, given the lack of secondary sources, is your say-so, and that is not how Wikipedia works. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. You say, "In case of a writer the ultimate source are his books, in case of an artist his artwork." Not so. Those are primary sources. Encyclopedias use secondary sources. No secondary sources, no notability--that's the rule here. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tnumgyz, this has been already linked to above, but in case you haven't clicked on it, I enourage you to read Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It clearly explains what kind of sources are acceptable in Wikipedia for establishing a subject's notability and for writing the article itself. — Kpalion(talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that writing an article about yourself is very strongly frowned upon. Reyk  YO!  04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now I see your point guys. Secondary sources are decisive. OK. (-: User: Tnumgyz —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC).  3 Sept.2010
 * 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.