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. Sandstein 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodryg Dunin[edit]

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

Non-notable bio; uncited, entirely Original Research, contributed by the apparent great-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 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - verifiability concerns, check ghits. MER-C 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. If you add -Elonka, you get 17 distinct hits and most of them look like Wiki mirrors anyway. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable, unless someone can come up with some reliable sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy That's apparently what they did with this page on the Polish Wikipedia. The author (Elonka Dunin) apparently has been spreading copies her family tree around the web quite a bit. I thought Rodryg might get an automatic inclusion as a count, but apparently in Poland being a count is roughly as notable as being a Kentucky colonel, and he and his family are not on the list of Polish magnates. He did get an article in the Polski Słownika Biograficzny,(see this list) for what it's worth. I don't doubt other references could be drummed up by the author, the question to me is notability. Weak keep Looks like notability has been established sufficiently, if not strongly. Tubezone 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Sarah. Consider this stricken if WP:RS is fufilled and therefore notability established. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and please do not userfy this or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though I'll agree that there's very little Google-able information, there are multiple references in Polish (which are listed in the References section). For example, it's easy enough to doublecheck that Rodryg Dunin is listed in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (Polski Slownik Biograficzny), which affirms notability. A transcript of the original Polish can be seen at Talk:Rodryg Dunin. --Elonka 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I can't see why we would delete this, article makes a claim to notability. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If he is notable for the Polski Slownik Biograficzny, who are we to argue otherwise?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please if it is notable enough for polski słownik it is also notable enough for an encyclopedia not limited by paper Yuckfoo 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let's be clear here: according to its article, there are over 25,000 names in the 42 volumes of the "Polish Biographical Dictionary." That to me doesn't raise it to the notability requirements of WP:BIO for the English Wikipedia; for the Polish WP, sure. However, Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who" directory of geneological entries, nor is it a memorial to our deceased ancestors.--Leflyman^Talk 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of notability, it's a vanity bio using the contributors own work as primary references. This same contributor relentlessly demands secondary references on articles she deems unworthy and nominates for deletion so she should hold herself to the same standard (or stop being so relentless in demanding every article be fully referenced from secondary / tertiary sources)Garrie 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Did the same contributor write the Polish Biographical Dictionary as well? RFerreira 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, the entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary was written in 1928, about 30 years before I was born. --Elonka 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If he is notable enough for the Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography, he is notable enough for Wikipedia. But anything based on oral family tradition and not verifiable through published sources should really be removed for the time being (until it has been published in a journal article or some other citable publication). Once that has been done, neither notability nor verifiability seems to be in question. Upp◦land 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uppland ... it certainly needs cleanup to only verifiable information... but I believe the notability criteria is passed.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: same, but stronger, concerns as for Antonin. Added to that, this article is pretty blatantly un-NPOV. My inclination is to delete, but will hold my vote for now. Ohconfucius 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove unverified facts until we can specifically link them to sources. We have sources to use, but we have no way to link the sources to specific facts. If the facts asserted are linked via inline citations, we can keep them. There may be a COI problem here, but that is a cleanup problem, not a deletion one. This person seems notable enough by the references listed at the end of the article. --Jayron32 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I disagree with Leflyman's view that someone might be notable enough for the Polish WP but not the English WP. English-speaking readers might want to know about notable Poles. This article has no interwiki link, though. The editors working on the Polish-language Wikipedia would be better placed to evaluate the Polski Slownik Biograficzny listing and other issues. If the Polish WP has an article, this should be an automatic Keep; if not, I'm undecided. JamesMLane t c 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one encyclopedia page in the Polish Wikipedia re the Dunin family that mentions Rodryg Dunin, other info on him in the PL WP apparently is on Elonka's userpage. I would note that while the Polish Wikipedians are very active (more articles than the Spanish version), they still only have about 1/6th the number of articles of the English version, it may just be a case where they haven't drilled far enough down the stack of articles that need to be written to get to Rodryg yet. Also, apparently Elonka doesn't write in Polish ;-) That reminds me, I'm thirsty for a frosty bottle of piwo. Tubezone 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With notable historic figures that aren't exactly George Washington, I assume there will be zero ghits and am surprised people use the google test on them. The print references cited above and in the article satisfy the "non-trivial published works" clause of WP:BIO. Notable in Poland does not mean non-notable for an English language encyclopedia. --Oakshade 22:34, 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.