Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz

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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz

Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not assert notability nor does it provide references to support any claim of notability. Ozgod (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Donating artifacts to a museum does not confer notability. The museum has a brief profile and there are some mentions in various sources but there does not appear to be much in-depth coverage of this otherwise obscure collector. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and reference better, there are many sources in Polish. Your not an obscure collector when people write about you, and there seems to be enough sources in Polish under the variations of his name. I can translate a bit but a native Polish speaker should be adding the references from the Polish version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. If references are better and someone is willing to do the research, allow them to expand the article and assist in establishing notability. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Has an article in Polish Biographical Dictionary; hence notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on the Biographical Dictionary entry. Piotrus, please add a cite to the article and I think we're done here.

-- BPMullins | Talk 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• As much as I would like to have access to PSB, I don't have it (although I could request it, I know a Polish editor who does). I do have an index and he shows up on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability depends on whether references in reliable sources exist, not on whether they have been put in the article. If one of English Wikipedia's most prolific and well respected editors says that he has an article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary then we should assume good faith and keep this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I didn't mean at all to question Piotrus's assertion. I accepted it - but if he'd had the reference handy (I thought he might from his comment) adding it would have made the quickest keep of the day. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Piotrus, based on Polish Biographical Dictionary entry. Visor (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Polish Biographical Dictionary needs 30 minutes to open, still good source of information - if he's there per Piotrus the inflexible historian, he's notable. greg park avenue (talk) 17:03, 19 March 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.