Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldemar Zboralski

Waldemar Zboralski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was recently deleted from Polish wikipedia (delete debate link) after long debate. Most serious allegations against the article were:
*original research (most of article was written by mr Zboralski himself) - same here, since article is (incomplete) translation of pl.wikipedia article.
*no reliable source - almost every source was 1) essay by mr Zboralski himself 2) interview with mr Zboralski or 3) confirming only part of the information placed in the article, or did not confirmed it at all (i.e. some sources did not mention mr Zboralski at all!) - same thing here.
After deleting embellished and false informations article about mr Zboralski was deleted due to notability rule. Article on en.wikipedia is only partial translation of deleted article from pl.wikipedia and same thing goes here (every of statement below was proved in mentioned delete debate at pl.wikipedia):
* Mr Zboralski did not became the first publicly known person who fell victim to secret Operation Hyacinth
* he was not the first person to publish articles on this subject in Polish press (it was proved that there were at least few more before him).
* Zboralski and his partner were not the first Polish gay couple married in Great Britain (it was proved that there was at least one other couple before them).
Same thing as on pl.wikipedia - after deleting false and embellished informations from article, we have biography of person that cleary doesn't complies with the principle of notability rule. ClanOXym (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that nominator is a single-purpose account: contribs... It is also worth noting, that in pl.wiki nomination was also created by an anonymous editor, with some disparaging remarks about Mr. Zboralski (it was later crossed out by admin and Polish ARBCOM member, Leszek Jańczuk).
But more on-topic: in Polish wiki the whole deletion process was quite controversial, and there were many good arguments supporting leaving the article in the mainspace. For example, I added info about Zboralski being called "gay Wałęsa" by the author of the book about gay movement in PRL. I think it clearly fulfills notability guidelines. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added info about Zboralski being called "gay Wałęsa" to the article. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

first of all - what difference my contribs log and/or contribs of nomination creator on pl.wiki does it make? especially when it turned out that the nomination was deserved, since article was deleted? Second - you're telling about "many good arguments supporting leaving the article" - I counted one, the one you mentioned ("gay Wałęsa"). "Many">"one", you know? And what's more importante - if there were so many good arguments supporting leaving the article, on polish language wikipedia, where every user could read not only the article, but every single one source... Why was the article deleted? Strange, isn't it? And BTW - be precise - words "więc niejako naturalnie został takim gejowskim Wałęsą" should be translated as "so he somehow naturally became the kinda gay Walesa". It makes difference, does it? Third - Krzysztof Tomasik is, pardon me for being brutally honest, average polish jurnalist - one of thousands. He is not well known in mainstream, he is not one of top jurnalists that you can see on TV at least once a week, or jurnalist whos articles are subject of debates in mainstream media. Publishing he writes for are rather niche, except for radio Tok FM, where he hosts one hour weekly program. Is this makes him some kind of "gay oracle"? And, back to topic, does fact that mr Tomasik mentioned mr Zboralski once make mr Zboralski notability enought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClanOXym (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "And what's more importante - if there were so many good arguments supporting leaving the article, on polish language wikipedia, where every user could read not only the article, but every single one source... Why was the article deleted? Strange, isn't it?" - there are some "cultural differences" (to put it mildly) between pl.wiki and en.wiki (and other countries in the West). Feel free to read this diplomatic cable from American embassy in Warsaw if you don't know what I am talking about... BartłomiejB (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I guest insted of write more then one of "many arguments" you decided to bring the discussion to matter of "polish homophobia"? ClanOXym (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest warning - I have created the article and I'm a friend of Waldemar.
1. Whatever has happened on Polish Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion - it's actually quite interesting to see that the article was deleted without reaching a consensus.
2. Person who nominated the article has raised three point without substantiating them in any way with relevant sources, I don't quite see why we should take them at face value. If there are reliable sources which confirm those points they should be included in the article according to the NPOV policy.Michał Rosa (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what do you meen "the article was deleted without reaching a consensus"? During debate few users proved that lots and lots of included in the article informations are false, and what's left was not even barelly notability enought...

all substantiations are within the article sources. It's not problem of lacking source, it's problem of misrepresenting or even distorting facts when it cames to put informations into wikipedia article. Which was brutally shown on polish wikipedia deletation debate (main reason of deleting article was that when you read what sources are really saying, the article turned out to be basically hoax(1)). Here we have simillar problem, although it's more complicated - most en.wikipedia user don't know polish language and have to trust "source->wikipedia" "translation". ClanOXym (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) when other users (not me!) read sources carefully it turned out that Zboralski was not founder, but co-founder of association, that he was not "first" but "one of the firsts", etc, etc. ClanOXym (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing - just like BartłomiejB you are (strangely) not precise - are you sure you created the article? Or just (partly) translated artcle from pl.wikipedia? Article written by... Waldemar Zboralski? Article which most of "sources" were... Waldemar Zboralski homepage/articles by Waldemar Zboralski? And even those sources were often over-inflated? ClanOXym (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]