Nihil novi (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*'''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. --[[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font></small>]] 20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
*'''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. --[[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font></small>]] 20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete.''' Wikipedia is not a place for non-notable individuals' ''[[Roots: The Saga of an American Family|Roots]]'' describing other largely non-notable relatives. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete.''' Wikipedia is not a place for non-notable individuals' ''[[Roots: The Saga of an American Family|Roots]]'' describing other largely non-notable relatives. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''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? -- it's members, and in terms of Poland's revolutionary and patriotic history, this family has contributed it's fair share via it's 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. [[User:Exxess|Exxess]] ([[User talk:Exxess|talk]]) 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:44, 27 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. 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. --Poeticbent talk 20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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? -- it's members, and in terms of Poland's revolutionary and patriotic history, this family has contributed it's fair share via it's 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)