Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Tomaszewski

Irene Tomaszewski

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. She has a great personal story, but the reliable source coverage just isn't there. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my comment above. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, she doesn't appear to satisfy GNG or AUTHOR, and I was unable to find good sources. In fact, none of the sources cited could be treated as independent, thus precluding any notability-conferring weight. When searching, I did find four mentions in The News-Item, but mostly trivial coverage. BEFORE found nothing else. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Unless I miss my mark, there is no article on this subject in the Polish-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references here are doing nothing to establish her notability at all — they're all either primary sources, or pieces of her own writing. But a person does not get over WP:GNG by being the author of reliable source coverage of other things; she gets over GNG by being the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. The sources here simply aren't cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline passes WP:NAUTHOR - has authored several books, including in English, and they are being cited (just click Google Scholar link at the top of the AfD). Few dozen citations in total, according to GScholar. Borderline, yes, but I lean on the inclusionist side here. PS. The article creator has not been notified of this AFD, a technical oversight that should require relisting after the notification. PPS. Since the author is currently topic banned from commenting here, if this is deleted, I will pre-emptively ask on their behalf to userfy it for them in their userspace so they have an option to improve it in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came very close to calling this a no consensus, but let's see if a relist helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]