Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinkowski-Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pinkowski-Institute
OK I'll nominate this one -- non-notable "institute", no RS, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that this website is non-notable per se, but as stated on Talk:Pinkowski-Institute, I created this article because this "Institute" is used as source on Wiki to promote Polish POV, and I want to have this investigated properly. See also Talk:Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, and mainly Talk:First Partition. -- Matthead Discuß 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, non-ecyclopedic. Phrases such as apparently named after and seems to operate are WP:OR and fail WP:V by means of WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - who the heck is Edward Pinkowski who allegedly operates some business or other out of Florida? The one who catches fish in murky water meaning mafioso which are plenty in Florida, especially in real estate, or so I heard? This article must be completely rewritten to fulfill Wiki standards, otherwise delete. greg park avenue (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to Talk:Pinkowski-Institute, Matthead has created this article to "collect info about the trustworthiness of this site as source for Wikipedia articles. Or the lack thereof..." Strong Delete re: WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question. Okay, nobody likes the article, I got that by now, thanks. But then, do you guys accept that several Wiki articles were/are sourced by this website? The following Wiki articles link(ed) to the site poles.org, as of a few hours ago: Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin (added again by Piotrus), John M. Budarz, John Scolvus. Nobody edited them since the AFD is up. Independently from the current state of the article, is the "Institute" considered as reliable source, or do you reject that also by voting "delete"? If the article gets deleted, can further attempts to use Poles.org as source be rejected by pointing to this AfD? -- Matthead Discuß 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Splash it as a source of reference - anyone can contribute to this website at His and Mr Pinkowski's will. Don't touch the articles you have listed above though - these will survive without this autobiographer's "eldorado" as long as the other sources are valid, and I checked out they are. greg park avenue (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't get the colloquial subtleties of the "Splash it" remark ("forget it"? "distribute it all over the place"?). As I understand, you checked the articles, and obviously accept the Pinkowski source at least as decoration, as you made no edits? -- Matthead Discuß 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Splash it means ground it as an airplane using a missile but over the water - an idiom used by US fighter pilots. In Wiki language - delete all references related to this source and parts of text based upon it. I saw something has already been done by User:Piotrus in Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin article. And yes, it's more like a decoration, worthless as a source over here. I saw also your contribution to discussion on the talk page of First Partition article - a bit overdone. These articles are very well referenced and removing this one source won't accomplish a thing, still I agree with you that some expressions as "civil war" or even the title "first partition" are not formulated precisely and misleading, and an insight of an outsider like you is very welcome. It should be named First Partition of Poland (1772) at least. But it's Piotrus' baby, he should work on it some more. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't get the colloquial subtleties of the "Splash it" remark ("forget it"? "distribute it all over the place"?). As I understand, you checked the articles, and obviously accept the Pinkowski source at least as decoration, as you made no edits? -- Matthead Discuß 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Splash it as a source of reference - anyone can contribute to this website at His and Mr Pinkowski's will. Don't touch the articles you have listed above though - these will survive without this autobiographer's "eldorado" as long as the other sources are valid, and I checked out they are. greg park avenue (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The place to discuss reliability of sources is the reliable sources noticeboard, not mainspace or AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The fact that other articles may use this institute's web page as a source has nothing to do with whether the institute itself is notable enough for an article. It clearly isn't. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2008 (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.
