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 no consensus, default to keep. Whether or not to remove the biographical information for which no sources are provided is an editorial decision. Sandstein 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin[edit]

Antoni Dunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable bio; uncited, entirely Original Research, contributed by the apparent grand-daughter of the subject. This does not mean that the subject might not have been a good or interesting person; he just wasn't notable/noted in any particular field for a contribution meriting recognition in an encyclopedia. One's ancestry may be important to oneself, but it's generally frowned upon to use Wikipedia for self-promotion of a biographical sort.-Leflyman^Talk 07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unverifiable, check ghits. MER-C 08:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless subject's notability as a medal recipient can be established. Only source listed is simply a list of medal winners-shows that he got it, but little else. Seraphimblade 08:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources, Delete as unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Sarah. Consider this stricken if WP:RS is fufilled and therefore notability established. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, and COI, as it was created by Elonka Dunin. -- Kicking222 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP all "Medal of Honor" recipients pass WP:BIO criteria, so the Polish equivalent should as well. A legitimate verifiable Source is provided (there are about 5 other sites you can verify this information with, they are all pay sites due to publishing rights). I'm really sick of people listing shit for deletion because Elonka created it... the fucking person is NOTABLE... revenge listings are against policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions:
    1. Where is the medal of honor thing in WP:BIO? I can't find it.
       • Neither can I now... it used to contain something to the effect of "recipients of awards with small numbers of members" things like Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor, Oscar were listed as examples... but I couldnt find that in the history when I went back through... it did use to be in there!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Isn't notability just a guideline for inclusion? IE, if something fails notability, it isn't included, while if something passes, it can be included provided that it is verifiable? I don't see any independent sources focusing specifically on the topic at hand. (Striking out this comment assuming the sources you mention do exist)--Wafulz 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)You might try the notability guidelines at WPMILHIST - which, although they are not policy, represent a project consensus on the kinds of military persons who are usually notable (note that this guideline restricts itself to the highest decoration, which I think might be the key here). Usually, however, it is expected that information about the action that won the award be provided, especially if this is a (or the) major grounds for claiming notability.Carom 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a high-level award bestows notability, this award is able to be given for a wide range of criteria. Assuming notability for a moment - how verifiable is this information given that the references are all primary sources, the author of which is the sole contributor to this article (barring minor contributors - typo patrolling)? Garrie 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep — I concur with Alkivar; this is starting to turn into personal attacks against Elonka. Antoni Dunnin is a notable war veteran so I see no reason why we would even consider deleting this. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete This is a sort of okay written article, but on the other hand, I've never heard of this "notable war veteran". Mixed thoughts about this.. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your having heard of anyone or anything within Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should be included, please restate your !vote in light of an applicable guideline or policy such as WP:V and see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military project for guidelines on what is considered notable within that framework. RFerreira 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep per Alkivar. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the precedent has been that recipients of a country's highest military decoration (e.g. the MoH, VC, HSU, or, in this case, the VM) are de facto notable for receiving it (see also WP:MILHIST#Notability). Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with above. I'm for inclusion when practical, and I believe notability hurdle has been passed (at least as far as Mil Hist Project has any say). Plus, coordinator is one of the best arbitors in this arena, and he's for inclusion. I'll stand with Kirill. BusterD 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep per Alkivar, provided the reasons why he got the medal are added. If this is his main claim to notability, it should be described in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a vanity bio. It would have been better if the sole contributor had published a book and let someone else decide Antoni was worth writing an article about. All the references are to primary sources, except for one about the daughter of the subject of the article (which is not really relevant to the subject of the article anyway). Garrie 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest some more of you go look at Virtuti Militari. In some aspects it is similar to the [[Medal of Honor] - in other aspects it bears no resembelance, being awarded for the actions of troops under command — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs)

• keep please does not read like vanity and all medal of honor recipients and equivalents should be included here Yuckfoo 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Alkivar. As for a possible relative having created this, it reads typically WP:NPOV and not the blatent vanity alot of us have been exposed to on this website. --Oakshade 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and try to find some better citations. I'm with Kirill on this one - to include some but not all from different countries seems wrong to me. - xiliquiern^Talk 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar and Kirill Lokshin, meets WP:MILITARY#Notability and is presented in a verifiable fashion with neutrally phrased language. To not keep this would be a blatant WP:BIAS toward English speaking recipients of similar awards. RFerreira 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As an FYI, so far as I can tell WP:MILITARY does not have recognised guideline status -- it is a Wikiproject. The bio's sole claim to notability is that at some point, prior to his death at 32, the subject received a Virtuti Militari medal. There is no verifiable source as to why or when such an award was given. In fact, the only reference of such is a Web site list, which itself doesn't source its information -- and lists a dozen Dunins as recipients. How do we even know that this "Antoni Dunin" is the same as the one listed? (Hint: we don't, because it's unverifiable). Further, while the article about the medal claims a comparison to the US Medal of Honor, this appears to be an exaggeration. It may be referred to as "Poland's highest military medal", but there are actually five classes of the award, the last of which has been given out over 4500 10,000 times (since 1939 alone). Compare this to the US Medal of Honor, of which there have fewer than 2000 receipients since the Civil War (during which 1500 were handed out).--Leflyman^Talk 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure people are aware of the absence of some convoluted polyguidelinestyleesssay banner from WP:MILHIST; nevertheless, the guidelines on that page represent the consensus of a substantial portion of editors working on military-related topics. How you choose to regard them is, of course, up to you; but I rather doubt that they have less support from the editorial community merely for lack of a banner.
• (As far as numbers are concerned: so what? The Hero of the Soviet Union was awarded more than 12,000 times, but I doubt anyone is arguing it's somehow less distinguished of an award. Countries that participated in more wars, or had larger military commitments to them, tend to hand out more awards.) Kirill Lokshin 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, WP:MILITARY is a Wikiproject, not a WP guideline or policy. Wikiprojects do not trump general WP standards. They are, as pointed out at WP:PROJGUIDE a "social construct" -- they do not set guidelines applicable to the rest of WP, outside of perhaps those particular articles within their participating editors' interest area. In sum, whatever it might say at WP:MILITARY has no bearing on WP:BIO. Likewise, the core points I made have not been addressed: no matter what claim the Virtuti Militari medal might have in the status of Poland's "highest military honors", the 10,000+ recipients of the Class 5 "Silver" medal are simply not notable within the English language Wikipedia. The medal is much closer to the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, which while certainly an honor, is hardly a qualification for Wikipedia. Finally, no one has a verified source that this Antoni Dunin is the actual receipient of this single medal-- again, the sole reference is an unsourced Web site list. Apart from this claim of an award, what else is notable about this individual who died at 32 years of age?--Leflyman^Talk 07:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This actually raises a very interesting issue - I would wholeheartly support making WP:MILITARY#Notability an official notability guideline, and I think we need to do this ASAP. That it is not yet is confusing as shown above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Recipients of a country's highest military award are blatantly notable, whether awarded for personal gallantry or for leadership. Is it logical to delete people like this and keep Z list celebrities just because they have acres of tabloid rubbish written about them and live in the computer age? It certainly seems to be if you're a deletionist and worship at the shrine of the great god Googlehits. I despair sometimes! -- Necrothesp 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to neutral here. I, possibly wrongly, assumed that this officer had been awarded one of the higher grades of the decoration. Rereading the description, I think that probably only the top four classes are automatically notable and the fifth is not (although recipients may be on a case-by-case basis) - this is in line with my own policy on British decorations that only holders of the VC and GC are automatically notable, plus those who have won one of the next highest awards twice or any other award (or combination) three times. We therefore need to know which class of the Virtuti Militari this officer received. -- Necrothesp 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Recipient of Virtuti Militari is a pretty good claim to notability. However, the nominator's concerns need to be addressed. As it stands, it may fail WP:COI; all but one of the reference links are WP:SELF, so it's pretty much WP:OR, and thus unverified. Ohconfucius 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't even state why he received the medal, nor give any references except one referring mostly to the subject's daughter's engagement. If it was that notable, his relative surely would have put it in the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Kirill Lokshin. Since he's the Mil Hist head, I think he'd know about what's considered notable for a mil hist subject. WP:Music decides about bands, Mil Hist decides on soldiers... Spawn Man 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep That he won the medal indicates notability. That we can confirm he won the medal also claims so. However, all unreferenced biographical information in the article needs to be removed and the article needs to then be tagged as a stub and tagged for expansion. As Virtuti Militari medal winner, he merits an article. However, we need to be able to verify other information before we can add it. The information needs to be verified by existing in other, external sources. The Detroit Free Press article is intriguing, but it is not specifically linked to any facts in the article; if we could do so it would help a great deal. --Jayron32 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep as per Kirill Lokshin's suggestion of improvment of article on military decoration.--Dryzen 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This debate reminds me of the recent AfD debate here, which was also an article apparently created by someone doing genealogical research. While these editors have every right to be proud of the sacrifices of their forebears, in both cases the only claim to notability for our purposes was military service; practically everything else in both articles was original genealogical research or tangential padding. Ancestor cruft is a trickle now; it will likely be a flood in the future. Prepare accordingly. —Kevin 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The difference is that not everyone's ancestor has won their country's top military honour! Most of them can therefore be speedied as completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It would be nice if that were true, but as the other debate showed, the notability guidelines can become fuzzy in individual cases. Canny genealogists should usually be able to avoid speedy deletion by turning a traditionally non-notable biography into one that at least makes a weak case for notability. In this article, for example, someone has created an article where normally there would be a one-line entry in something like "List of the 10,000 people who have won the Virtuti Militari". That's fine—it's an important honor, let's have articles on all 10,000 people. Other genealogists, however, undoubtedly feel that their ancestor's achievements are of similar (i.e., 1 in 10,000) distinction. This is just the tip of the genealogy iceberg, I tell ya. —Kevin 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic. I have myself speedy deleted at least two genealogical articles about gentlemen with worthy but not especially notable war service. If someone just does their job, however competently, has not held a senior position and has not received any recognised state reward then they meet speedy deletion criteria without needing to be AfDed. -- Necrothesp 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I would encourage others to write and apply notability guidelines in such a way as to screen out genealogy cruft, and to strictly adhere to WP:NOR and WP:Verify whenever they catch a whiff of genealogy. Obviously you and others here are already on the case; keep up the good work. —Kevin 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on "highest military decoration" argument. Will this open the floodgates to 10,000 articles about Polish military heroes? Probably not, but if it did, I wouldn't see that as a problem. JamesMLane t c 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.