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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Pawlowski

[edit]

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

This bio is written in a very promotional tone. He has obtained some local news coverage - not sure if this is enough to meet GNG but I don't believe he is especially notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient news coverage of Pawlowski to satisfy WP:GNG]]. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The coverage is there but dynamite for promotional material, original research, and apparent conflict of interest. Vrac (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article certainly needs improvement, but it has the feel of one that we ought to have. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He was interviewed in major Polish news station ([1]) but otherwise I am not seeing other RS in Polish. The coverage in English sources seems to be for more than one event, so I guess he passes as his actions where covered for more than one newsworthy event. The article is a mess, and the sources are poor, so it's pretty borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I appreciate the subject's Christian values, the flowery language in this article has to be removed. Still, I vote to keep the article because it has significant coverage by independent reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (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.