Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 29 March 2013

Advice Polack

Advice Polack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As this stands today, it's a stub with one ref of poor reliability. I tend to be more of an inclusionist when it comes to 'net memes, but at this stage this doesn't look like a keeper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable trivia. Mcewan (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Ever heard of that little thing called BLP? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: There seems to be a perectly adequate and referenced vesion in the history - so I have reverted to that version. .  Giano  14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page. That vesion is not perectly adequate and referenced. It's junk.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, good deal of references in version as pointed out by Giano (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be more than adequately referenced to meet basic notability requirements. If it's to be argued that the sources used are unreliable, then it should be explained why they are unreliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - the version restored by Giano is not based on reliable sources. This HAS been explained on talk if someone actually bothered to look. NIE (weekly magazine) is NOT a reliable source, for facts and certainly NOT for BLP related stuff (it's a smear mag/tabloid). The rest is just "random crap found on the internet". Nothing to indicate the subject's notability. Nota bene - even if this is kept (and it's hard to AGF some of these votes) the BLP material sourced to NIE and other junk goes. That's just BLP policy and is not subject to a vote.Volunteer Marek 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• BLP delete and salt Even the well-referenced versions of this indicate that it's mostly about making a hash out of one innocent person's life. Also, once I exclude us and Meme Generator, I get next to nothing on this; the references all seem to be in Polish. There is of course going to be a lot of push to keep this, just as was the case for some notorious examples of the past. They should be dismissed in favor of this person's privacy. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Mangoe's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Earlier versions make it clear that this is an egregious BLP violation. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and salt I concur with above opinion that this is clear BLP violation based on very questionable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• There now appears to be an edit war by User:Volunteer Marek who having gutted the excellent content to bring the page down to deletion standard, now seem to be obsessed with having it deleted. I suggest the content and references are restored.  Giano  18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "obsessed with having it deleted". I cut out all the crap and BLP violating stuff several months ago, back in December, and I was fine with the shortened stub version remaining on Misplaced Pages for the time being - i.e. I didn't nominate it for deletion myself. But since it has been brought to AfD, yes, the subject is not notable (he's some poor provincial desk cop who's life has already been messed up by this stupid meme thing).Volunteer Marek 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are, you are completely obsessed and I shall get to the bottom of why that is - trust me on that one. The encyclopaedia is full of far worse page with far more dodgy references, but this page has stung you; you have been heavily editing it, and now your mate nominates it for deletion. That is most odd - most odd indeed.  Giano  18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, Giano, the only person "obsessed" here is you. Why is that? And if you know of far worse page on the encyclopaedia with far more dodgy references, let me know and I'll cut crap out of them too.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Giano, I based my response here solely on your preferred version, not on the truncated version favored by others. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous.  Giano  18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, just simply not notable, and agree that the expanded version was an egregious violation of BLP. --Nug (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

there is no BLP as the name has been removed lol.  Giano  19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that's a "lol" comment right there.Volunteer Marek 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, per Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been speedied, deleted and restored before, so I don't think PRODs/speedies apply.Volunteer Marek 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think G10 applies, but not for that reason. G10 can apply even after prods/speedies/restorations. But I can't comprehend why G10 would apply in this case; Poeticbent, would you elaborate please? HaugenErik (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that upon coming to that article "it's an attack page" is a sensible conclusion one might arrive at. It's what I thought when I first saw it, which is why I also nomed it for G10 back in the day. However, there was ... "some" ... discussion about it here and it got restored. I'm guessing Poeticbent thought the same thing when he saw the page.Volunteer Marek 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There was more discussion here .Volunteer Marek 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates