| Revision as of 23:04, 15 November 2008 editPeterkingiron (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,716 edits →Dariusz Ratajczak← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:00, 16 November 2008 edit undoGreg park avenue (talk | contribs)1,340 edits →Dariusz RatajczakNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Nsk92 and DGG. A clear keep by ] based on sourcing already in article. No article with as much written elsewhere about the topic, see also gnews, gbooks, should be deleted.] (]) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Nsk92 and DGG. A clear keep by ] based on sourcing already in article. No article with as much written elsewhere about the topic, see also gnews, gbooks, should be deleted.] (]) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' -- I presume that he is notable, becasue he is notorious for Holocaust denial. Unfortuantely, if it is to be comprehensive WP has to cover some unpleasant subjects. ] (]) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' -- I presume that he is notable, becasue he is notorious for Holocaust denial. Unfortuantely, if it is to be comprehensive WP has to cover some unpleasant subjects. ] (]) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Move''' to ]. No reason to argue notability of the scandal. Agree with user Xx236, few self published booklets doesn't make him notable as a person, but the affair obviously is. I refrain from further comment regarding this individual, afraid to be accused again for BLP violation. ] (]) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:00, 16 November 2008
Dariusz Ratajczak
- Dariusz Ratajczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
not notable Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I wouldn't say it's not notable because it's reliably sourced (with multiple cites), but it may fall within WP:NOT#NEWS. So I'll stay neutral for now until better arguments on either side are offered.--Boffob (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Reliably sourced - maybe, but what is sourced - a possible candidate for local government, author of a booklet printed in 230 copies, a person changing his opinions, a small criminal? There are millions of such people.Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as poorly-sourced, negative BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Sorry, but are we looking at the same article? This is not a speedy and not a poorly sourced article. The article is already properly sourced to reliable sources and there are quite a few more out there. There is plenty of detailed and specific coverage of the subject, which is spread over a considerable period of time, so that certainly is not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. There are even quite a few books that discuss the subject of this article. Several such books are cited in the article, and there are more in the googlebooks search. Definitely passes WP:BIO and the negative info in the article is well-sourced, so I do not see compelling BLP grounds for deleting it. Nsk92 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Nsk92, this seems like a "one event" case, which is why I am recommending deletion. A search for news covering him returns many hits, but primarily related to one event, which calls for deletion based on WP:1E. He does not quality under WP:PROF; a search on a few academic databases and Google Scholar returned almost no hits (when false positives were removed) and no citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Err, no. If this is a BLP1E case, then what exactly is the "one event" here? That he is a notable Holocaust denier? That's not an event, but a sign of notability. Moreover, you are quite wrong in saying that BLP1E just calls for deletion. It says: "cover the event not the person", the key word being cover. If there is an alternative name/target for an article that covers/would cover whatever you think is the underlying notable event is here, I'd be perfectly happy to consider it. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my veiw, the one event in question is one instance of a class of events, namely Holocaust denial. The instance is his Holocaust denial in Poland. (Note: I do find it somewhat surprising that it is a crime in Poland to deny the Holocaust, given the freedom of expression laws in many countries.) But, as Ali G. says, I digest - I hope my point is clearer now. I am, as always, open to more discussion and even to changing my recommendation--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Being a prominent proponent of a particular point of view is by definition, not an event. An event, by definition, is a specific occurrence of something, that takes place within a specific brief period of time, such as a meeting, a battle, a crime, a speech, an athletic competition, etc. A "class of events", especially one that took place and received coverage over extended period of time (in this case years) is most certainly not an event. Otherwise one can easily argue that BLP1E applies just about to anyone: an athlete is notable for, to quote you, a "class of events", related to his/her performance in a particular single sport; a scientist is usually only notable for work in one specific field, and so on. That is not what BLP1E is meant for. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, but look at this: another interesting fact that can add to our discussion, and that does support the WP:1E argument, I think. The article states that he received a low sentenced because “… Ratajczak's self-published book had only 230 copies and that in the second edition and public appearances he criticized the Holocaust denial.” That is, his media coverage does not stem from his maintaining his views over time, like other deniers, but for writing a book with claims that he himself criticized later.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is really splitting hairs. It does not matter if the book sold any copies at all, the fact is that is caused a significant public scandal and received a lot of coverage (negative of course, such as this article in a 2000 issue of The Journal for Historical Review, but significant coverage nonetheless). This was followed by his firing, a criminal trial, that also received a great deal of coverage both nationally and internationally, conviction, appeals etc, all coverer over the period of years in both Polish and international media and in various books. With a very great deal of a stretch one could maybe attempt to make an argument that the main notable event here was the initial publication of the book and that everything that followed proceeded from there. Even if that were the case, creating an article about the book rather than the person would not make much sense here. As Ronit Lentin's 2004 book put it: "Finally, Poland has 'achieved' its own incarnation of David Irving: Dariusz Ratajczak (1999) published a book that indirectly denied the Holocaust". Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, but look at this: another interesting fact that can add to our discussion, and that does support the WP:1E argument, I think. The article states that he received a low sentenced because “… Ratajczak's self-published book had only 230 copies and that in the second edition and public appearances he criticized the Holocaust denial.” That is, his media coverage does not stem from his maintaining his views over time, like other deniers, but for writing a book with claims that he himself criticized later.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Being a prominent proponent of a particular point of view is by definition, not an event. An event, by definition, is a specific occurrence of something, that takes place within a specific brief period of time, such as a meeting, a battle, a crime, a speech, an athletic competition, etc. A "class of events", especially one that took place and received coverage over extended period of time (in this case years) is most certainly not an event. Otherwise one can easily argue that BLP1E applies just about to anyone: an athlete is notable for, to quote you, a "class of events", related to his/her performance in a particular single sport; a scientist is usually only notable for work in one specific field, and so on. That is not what BLP1E is meant for. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- And of course he does not qualify under WP:PROF, but he does qualify under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my veiw, the one event in question is one instance of a class of events, namely Holocaust denial. The instance is his Holocaust denial in Poland. (Note: I do find it somewhat surprising that it is a crime in Poland to deny the Holocaust, given the freedom of expression laws in many countries.) But, as Ali G. says, I digest - I hope my point is clearer now. I am, as always, open to more discussion and even to changing my recommendation--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Err, no. If this is a BLP1E case, then what exactly is the "one event" here? That he is a notable Holocaust denier? That's not an event, but a sign of notability. Moreover, you are quite wrong in saying that BLP1E just calls for deletion. It says: "cover the event not the person", the key word being cover. If there is an alternative name/target for an article that covers/would cover whatever you think is the underlying notable event is here, I'd be perfectly happy to consider it. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's his whole career as an author , not just a single publication. There was one particular notorious one, but this doesn't make it One event . Sufficient references even so, showing the event is important enough. If there is a continuing discussion of it, it doesn' tfit under oneevent. DGG (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keepper Nsk92 and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Nsk92 and DGG. A clear keep by WP:BIO based on sourcing already in article. No article with as much written elsewhere about the topic, see also gnews, gbooks, should be deleted.John Z (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- I presume that he is notable, becasue he is notorious for Holocaust denial. Unfortuantely, if it is to be comprehensive WP has to cover some unpleasant subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Move to Dariusz Ratajczak affair. No reason to argue notability of the scandal. Agree with user Xx236, few self published booklets doesn't make him notable as a person, but the affair obviously is. I refrain from further comment regarding this individual, afraid to be accused again for BLP violation. greg park avenue (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)