Eastern876 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
[[Image:Sofri--adriano--una-nobile-famiglia-di-varsavia.jpg|thumb|left|800px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło]]<br clear="all"> |
[[Image:Sofri--adriano--una-nobile-famiglia-di-varsavia.jpg|thumb|left|800px|Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło]]<br clear="all"> |
||
[[User:Exxess|Exxess]] ([[User talk:Exxess|talk]]) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:Exxess|Exxess]] ([[User talk:Exxess|talk]]) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
*''' Strong Keep.''' I have been following this article for awhile and can not determine the source of controversy regarding this information. The citations are accurate and clearly establish the notability of the family. If the attacker has a personal or political reason to believe the information should not be documented on Wikipedia, then they should state their reasons. Reasons along those lines will probably not meet Wikipedia's policies for deletion, but that doesn't justify the false assertions of a DIFFERENT reason for deletion, just to get the article removed. |
Revision as of 02:35, 28 December 2008
Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family
- Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The family doesn't seem notable. Don't be fooled by seeming plentiful refs: they are not about the family. The better referenced part of the article consists of poor forks of info about Polish general history and nobility in specific. Next, several members of the family are described, the first one has any notability claims and has a separate article; perhaps Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski may also be notable, nobody else seems to be. The family might have had one notable member and the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two, but that doesn't make them notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family for last year's nom. I suggest deleting the article, and if there is consensus, splitting the section on "Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski" into its own article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a depository for genealogy trivia. -- Matthead Discuß 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Strong delete. Cited sources I checked although somewhat related, don't seem to support any of the specific data. Family might actually be mentioned somewhere if offline references are accepted on good faith but the links lead nowhere, leaving a bad feeling, tied with WP:NPA and WP:CIV violations.
Note, changed vote from Delete to Strong delete per WP:PROVEIT. Quote: "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: You're being VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, Poeticbent. Do I need to SCAN jpeg images of the pages from the sources that mention this family? GO TO A LIBRARY, GET THE BOOKS YOURSELF, TURN TO THE PAGES MENTIONED, AND READ. Instead of being AMBIGUOUS with Wikipedia policy quotes, which is an attempt to make yourself look authoritative, BE SPECIFIC about what you require. Exxess (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quoting Wikpedia:
- "A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example:
- Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1."
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for non-notable individuals' Roots describing other largely non-notable relatives. Nihil novi (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Don't be fooled by the self-styled "Prokonsul" Konieczny's self-contradicting contentions, which "seem" to have merit. This is his second attempt to have this article deleted, and I make a motion to have him banned from further nominating this article from any other deletion attempts and nominations, as this is simply becoming a case of harassment and double jeopardy from the self-styled Prokonsul. The self-styled Prokonsul made this case before and lost. Given he's named himself "Prokonsul," I understand he has trouble distinguishing between delusions of grandeur and notability.
- Quoting Wikipedia on notability: 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'
- Quoting a user from last year: 'Konieczny's argument is self-contradicting -- "the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two" obviously makes the family notable. Someone going to the Radwan coat of arms in almost all historical chronicles (Polish armorials) will see this family listed, and the Wikipedia entry for Radwan arms has a link to this family, which is useful for discovering more information about them. Hopefully, more families listed under the Radwan arms will do the same, as this will give insight into the fates of families listed. Polish genealogists with their own family names listed in Polish armorials will probably find this information insightful, and the footnotes section will give them starting points.'
- In essence, what makes a family notable? -- its members, and in terms of Poland's revolutionary and patriotic history, this family has contributed its fair share via its members, some of whom have married into other noble families higher on the grandeur scale, which is what is confusing the self-styled Prokonsul -- grandeur and notability are not one in the same.
- Regarding the links, some of them have gone stale, but that can be fixed.
- Why is this listed as a broken citation? -- "This family of ancient origin are connected to famous Polish-born English author Joseph Conrad[2][broken citation]" ... I just checked the link, and it works perfectly. Jerzy Zdrada is currently a professor and his book, with sources to backup that assertion, is available worldwide. Exxess (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Exxess is the anonymous creator of the listed article, and his contributions to this project are limited to that single issue. In other words: a WP:SPA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Now don't be presumptuous, self-styled "Prokonsul." I've made contributions to other articles, so it be to your advantage to not assert a WP:SPA, which is inaccurate, as are your self-contradicting reasons for nominating this article, yet again, for deletion. Anonymity is something I prefer at this time for reasons having nothing to do with this article. Exxess (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no intention of discussing something with a person who violates civility and calls others names ("presumptuous, self-styled "Prokonsul"" and such). If you apologize and remove your offensive (and blockable: WP:NPA, WP:CIV) remarks, I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. Otherwise, I have stated my case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm being PROVOCATIVE, Prokonsul, because your logic appears extremely FLAWED to me, yet you have summary power to nominate, YET AGAIN, this article for deletion. In a sense, this abuse of power of yours, is UNCIVILIZED, and you need to make a better point-for-point case ON THE ISSUE OF NOTABILITY. I do NOT think you have a case, as suggested by the facts and evidence I've just entered for the record. You DO NOT have any case beyond some VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS assertion of yours that this family does not SEEM to be notable, when I've entered objective evidence, based on Wikipedia's Notability criteria, that the family is indeed notable. You are merely being ARGUMENTATIVE for PERSONAL reasons of your own, which your own statements suggest, and I make a motion to have this nomination for deletion DISMISSED and DELETED with extreme prejudice, as you are basing your position on some VAGUE HUNCH, which is not sufficient for an article deletion, so-called Prokonsul. If Wikipedia could sanction you, I would recommend that. Exxess (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd personally like to see the self-styled Prokonsul state his own criteria for notability (which is what this argument is about), divorced from this article, so his contentions could be picked apart as compared to Wikipedia's statements on notability. I don't think my judgment, in terms of this article and notability, should even rise to the level of a controversy. I think the self-styled Prokonsul, making his own personal statement of notability, would bring a lot of clarity to the plaintiff Prokonsul's reoccurring and redundant complaint, a perfect case of double jeopardy. Exxess (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this listed as a broken citation? -- "Scions of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family, an old patriotic Polish noble/gentry family[1][not in citation given] [2],[broken citation]" ... The links works. Page 103 of Lerski's work states:
- "DABROWSKI, JAROSLAW (1836-1871), revolutionary and general. The offspring of an OLD POLISH GENTRY FAMILY, ..."
- To state the patently obvious, that's a reference to the Radwan Dabrowski-Zadlo family. The family were NOTED in Lerski's work, HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF POLAND, 966-1945. It's patently obvious since they were NOTED, they've met a criteria for NOTABILITY. Exxess (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this being a broken citation, it boggles the mind -- "This family of ancient origin are connected to famous Polish-born English author Joseph Conrad[2][broken citation]" ... Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, available worldwide, states on page 10:
- "Przez żonę Piotra, Marię z Korzeniowskich, byli Dąbrowscy spowinowaceni ze znanym pisarzem JÓZEFEM KORZENIOWSKIM."
- That's JOSEPH CONRAD, for those who are too lazy to obtain the work referenced before making inaccurate statements regarding so-called "broken citations." Exxess (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the self-styled Prokonsul rebut the following as not being notable, regarding the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family, as it would provide some clarity to his "black-is-white" argument this particular family is not notable. Two widely published works available worldwide have already NOTED the family. Jerzy Zdrada is a professor at the University of Jagielloński. Before someone too lazy to verify their statements before making them makes an assertion that that's a "broken citation," check here: http://www.uj.edu.pl/index.html
- Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, states on page 9:
- "Jarosław Radwan Żądło Dąbrowski urodził się 13 listopada 1836 roku w Żytomierzu na Wołyniu. Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności.""
- Seems to me, as the family is specifically noted in a scholarly and widely published work, which I obtained from the Library of the University of California, Los Angeles, the family qualifies as being notable. I'd like to see the self-styled Prokonsul rebut that. I don't think it's possible, but given his logic, he might surprise me. Exxess (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family is yet again NOTED in a contemporary article available online by Adriano Sofri:
- "La storia di un carcerato polacco vecchio e malato, discendente di una nobile famiglia di Varsavia, ..."
- The article in Italian is in regards to a Victor Dombrowsky, related to Jaroslaw Dombrowsky (Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło). It seems to me, Prokonsul, the family is SPECIFICALLY noted in THREE SOURCES available WORLDWIDE in THREE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, nonetheless. How you can turn that into the family NOT being notable is hilarious and almost worthy of ridicule, as your contentions are ludicrous, objectively speaking, which is why I make a motion to have you personally BANNED from nominating, yet again, this article for deletion, which is simply an abuse of power in summary judgment fashion, and the matter seems to bother you personally, for reasons and motives of your own, which you need to clarify for the community. Exxess (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean to discourage you, User Exxess (talk · contribs), especially that you're new to the game (a year and a half somewhat misleading) and estranged from our long-term contributors to Poland related subjects in English Wikipedia. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NPA principle to begin with. Anyhow, my concerns about your insufficient references still hold, in spite of your objections. For example, you provided a link to an Amazon.com advertisement of Historical Dictionary of Poland [1] which is NOT a reference by our standards. It is a spam-link, with anonymous reviews which don't count as reliable. What is needed is a link to a specific page in that book, with something to read. The same holds true about your spam-link to WorldCat.org advertisement of Jarosław Dąbrowski, 1836-1871 [2] by Jerzy Zdrada. There's a box on that page that reads: "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location." In other words, there's nothing there to support your assertions. Please, do your leg-work if you want to convince anybody! Do allow sources to speak for themselves, and don't forget to assume good faith on our part. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 18:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Poeticbent, the worldcat link to Zdrada's book works PERFECTLY for me. I do NOT get "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location."
- What are you talking about? Do you have Internet connectivity problems?
- Secondly, my links are to SHOW YOU THE BOOKS EXIST, and my references HAVE PAGE NUMBERS. That's STANDARD IN BIBLIOGRAPHY. Do you understand? There is NOTHING to quote ONLINE from those sources. GO TO A LIBRARY AND GET THE BOOKS, TURN TO THE PAGE NUMBERS LISTED, AND READ FOR YOURSELF what the article ASSERTS. Your logic is little bit LOOPY, and you appear lazy.
- Second, LET'S KEEP THE ARGUMENT FOCUSED. The so-called Prokonsul is NOT EVEN convinced by his own argument regarding notability and this family, as evidenced by his own statement:
- Prokonsul -- "The family doesn't SEEM notable."; his key word being "SEEM."
- Can ANYONE rebut the notability claims regarding this patently obvious notable family, just entered into the record as evidence, BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES? (Laughter.) I think this nomination for deletion on lack of notability claims is stupid, to be blunt, and the nomination for deletion should be deleted with extreme prejudice in summary judgment and execution fashion.
- Also, for the record, this argument for me is more about the notability issue more than anything else. I think Prokonsul has made a not-very-intelligent assertion, and also made a claim upon which relief cannot be granted, the issue being notability, as the facts and evidence directly contradict his assertion. It's very hard arguing about something that for all intents and purposes is self-evident, regarding notability and this family. Prokonsul seems to want to qualify notability with a threshold that equates notability with extremely notable, a.k.a. "fame," or grandeur, something along those lines.
- Reiterating Wikipedia on notability: 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'
- THREE WIDELY-PUBLISHED, VERIFIABLE, AND AVAILABLE SOURCES have already NOTED the family. What more does Prokonsul require? I'd like to have him state his criteria.
- THIS WE HAVE REGARDING THE FAMILY. -- '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.'
- Regarding the above, several widely-available Polish armorials address the family exclusively and in detail, as does Professor Jerzy Zdrada. This family is not the Polish version of the Kennedy's, but that's hardly the point. They are self-evidently notable. Amaze me and rebut that.
- THIS WE HAVE. I JUST ENTERED THE EVIDENCE. -- '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'
- THIS WE HAVE. I JUST ENTERED THE EVIDENCE FROM THREE MULTIPLE SOURCES. -- '"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.'
- THIS WE HAVE. I DID NOT WRITE THE REFERENCE SOURCES CITED. -- '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.'
- THIS IS IN QUESTION. IN TERMS OF POLAND'S REVOLUTIONARY HISTORY, I THINK THE FAMILY IS NOTABLE AND SERVES AS A FINE EXEMPLAR OF POLAND'S PAST. -- '"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.'
One WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE:
Exxess (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Another WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE. Is this what you require, Poeticbent? Were not the bibliographic citations enough?:
Exxess (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Another WIDELY-PUBLISHED SOURCE. Is this what you require, Poeticbent? Were not the bibliographic citations enough? Why am I getting the feeling particular people feel they OWN Poland Wikipedia? So far, MULTIPLE SOURCED, WIDELY AVAILABLE, and VERIFIABLE citations have been provided. There are more. Prokonsul, the family is self-evidently notable, and so far, no point-for-point rebuttal from you, yet, just VAGUE HUNCHES. Who is FOOLING who, now? Your deletion nomination is unjustified in the face of the evidence, as far as notability is concerned.:
Exxess (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And YET ANOTHER WIDELY published source (http://www.sofri.org/dopotutto1510.html) mentioning THE FAMILY via it's MEMBERS (quote: "una nobile famiglia di Varsavia, ..."). Whatever your REAL reasons for wanting this article deleted, Prokonsul, you surely need to come up with something less ludicrous than a notability challenge. As far as proving anything to Poeticbent concerning verifiability of sources and supporting specific data, I think that's been done more than adequately.:
Exxess (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I have been following this article for awhile and can not determine the source of controversy regarding this information. The citations are accurate and clearly establish the notability of the family. If the attacker has a personal or political reason to believe the information should not be documented on Wikipedia, then they should state their reasons. Reasons along those lines will probably not meet Wikipedia's policies for deletion, but that doesn't justify the false assertions of a DIFFERENT reason for deletion, just to get the article removed.