Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination)

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, given that notability problems have been addressed in the discussion and the article has been improved since the nomination. Merging is an editorial decision that can be brought up at any time. --Coredesat 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin

AfDs for this article:
Antoni Dunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not satisfy WP:BIO; apparently created by relative. THF 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity article, created by relative. A figure of little importance, only sources are those created by the relative that authored this article or a single line-item on a list. Quatloo 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Created by a relative is not automatically a reason for deletion. As an experiment, though, I removed original research sourced to a family web site. There's not much left. Although it is stated that he "was a Polish nobleman (szlachta),", the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction. Without the family web site I'm not sure that notability is independently established. Thatcher131 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. What's there right now is not. Friday (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Created by a relative" and "COI" are not reasons to delete. However, the article does lack evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, so I would favor deletion per WP:BIO. MastCell Talk 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I completely agree that COI is not a reason to delete. I mentioned the COI as background for why the article exists, though I should have been more clear. THF 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are five classes of Virtuti Militari, and only the first class, by definition, is the "highest military decoration for valor." According to Virtuti Militari's comprehensive list, Dunin is not one of the first-class recipients. I don't think WP:BIO encompasses the thousands of fifth-class Virtuti Militari awards. THF 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe if you refer to the information on the Virtuti Militari after the 1933 changes (Antoni was awarded III class in 1938) the difference between classes was the number of men you commanded. Since Antoni did not command a front or entire war, he would not be eligible for I or II.Shell babelfish 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the article is worthy of keeping on the basis of the award - especially given the tiers are affected only by number of men commanded. I was worried about the possibility of too many stubs about medal recipients with no further content- but judging from the additional sourced material it seems we can include referenced material detailing some of his military actity. His marriage is also referenced. There seems to be enough that can be said to warrant an article, and the award establishes notability. WjBscribe 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was asked to restore the deleted content and I have. However, note that everything except the name in a list of medal winners and the daughter's engagement is sourced to the author's personal family history web site. Now, I love family history and have my own family history web site, but I haven't written articles about them on Wikipedia. Thatcher131 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral in terms of deletion. This bio is about a relative of User:Elonka, and there has been a great deal of controversy around her family's articles here. There's a thread at WP:ANI which alludes to some of the issues. I ask the closing admin to pay extra heed in dealing with this potential hot potato. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra heed? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the fact that this is an editor's relative and there's been controversy should probably be ignored for the purposes of closing this AFD. The article should be deleted or kept on its own merits, not based on who wrote it. Friday (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per THF, not a recipient of highest class honour so fails notability there, especially since no mention in article at all of military exploits unlike other articles of (first class) recipients. If he is notable for military activities, would surely require reliable sourced information on that, rather than general bio. The rest of article is original researched family information. Fails BIO, OR, and lack of evidence of reliable secondary sources. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thatcher131 hits it on the head, here; there are virtually no independent sources made available regarding this person, and it would seem to be based mostly on original research. Thus, it seems he would fail WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table the question. This AFD reiterates a prior, failed AFD, adds no new reason for deletion, was opened in questionable faith and is rapidly turning into, based on some of the personalities so far involved, more of a proxy referendum on our opinion of User:Elonka than it is a proper AFD discussion. I don't think we can come to any meaningful decision at this time, on this issue. Philwelch 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This problem already has a solution: opinions which are not relevant, such as any opinions about a particular editor, will be disregarded in the closure of this AFD. We don't put Wikipedia on hold just because there's a conflict. Friday (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the opinion is unstated? You're going to have a hard time enforcing that. Don't be naive—everyone on Wikipedia knows how to game the political process by now. Philwelch 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never dealt with Elonka in my life before today, and resent the questioning of my good faith. There is new information: the previous discussion incorrectly claimed repeatedly that there was notability because Dunin was the recipient of the highest Polish military honor, but Dunin does not have the highest Polish military honor. I think most of Elonka's other articles satisfy WP:BIO, and do not propose deletion of them. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of you or your dealings with Elonka—it is the timing that gives me pause. Philwelch 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of us who have been active at AfD over the past six months remember the Arbuthnot articles, which were created in large numbers based on a fairly-well-written family genealogy that was held in a number of American libraries, and probably in other countries too. The problem is that there were no other accessible documents from which a real article could be written. I believe that the Antoni Dunin article suffers from the same problems. In the case of the Arbuthnot articles, which included a number of military figures, we did keep those who were documented as commanding a substantial number of troops in combat. See WP:MILHIST#Notability. I'm influenced by the argument given above by THF that Virtuti Militari came in several categories, and Antoni Dunin did not receive the highest grade of Virtuti Militari. Irrespective of any arguments that might be based on WP:MILHIST, the lack of secondary sources is a serious problem. EdJohnston 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/comment Just out of curiosity, had this article been created by a non-relative and the family tree references used been cited by an individual other than the person who created it, would this even be a RS/V/OR issue? I've seen entirely unsourced articles brought for deletion that were kept based upon the addition of references to personal/official websites for the individual/organization by independent individuals. These articles were primarily based upon these sources. LaMenta3 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article flunks WP:BIO even including the genelogical materials. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a family history buff. With the exception of a few very notable families, (e.g. the Kennedys) whose history is researched, documented and published by multiple biographers, almost all family history is original research as defined by Wikipedia. Simply put, not enough people care about the Thatcher family to have multiple (or even one) well-researched and fact-checked family tree published by a non-vanity press. I could write about my great-uncle, who was co-founder and president of a major bank, because there are multiple sources about his life, but I can't write about his brothers or his ancestry because, as interesting as they are to me, no one else has found them interesting enough to write about them. I could give you their names and ask you to write a non-COI article but you would not find anything on the web that didn't originally come from me. Personal family history web sites are simply not reliable sources. A good site might be a legitimate external link, if it had copies of letters, documents, and so forth that the historian had accumulated. The family tree cited here is nothing more than names and dates, and although I'm sure the author has documentation to support this family tree, it is not provided--and even if it were, it would be original research, unless independently published. Thatcher131 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice, and encourage someone† to userfy. An interesting life story and nobility alone do not seem to meet the ever-subjective notability threshold. But, if notability can be established, then I'd have no objection to the article be resurrected or recreated. (†Someone other than me, that is...)   justen   21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom- no evidence of any notability.--SefringleTalk 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as article creator) I will respect the community consensus on this, but I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. I did not create this article because the individual is my grandfather, I created the article because I felt that he met Wikipedia's notability standards. I also created other articles about other family members, who I similarly felt were sufficiently notable. I had reviewed discussions such as at Wikipedia:Centralized discussions where the consensus on Nobility was that those of noble genealogy were inherently notable. I had seen AfDs such as this one that showed consensus for this as well.[1] I also saw that those who were recipients of a country's highest medal were considered notable. I was able to locate a third-party list confirming the award of the Virtuti Militari medal.[2] And I had plenty of primary sources which confirmed the information, and were summarized in my family tree. Granted, there's not much more than a stub article here, but I felt that there was enough for a "real" stub. I also added some other minor biographical information, which is sourced to my own family tree. As it turned out, the quantity of biographical information exceeded the amount of third-party sourced information. I apologize if it looks like I was trying to create a "fluff" piece about one of my relatives, as that was not my intention at the time. I felt then (and still do), that I was helping to "fill in a gap". There are plenty of places where Wikipedia someday will have articles, that it currently doesn't. The Mayors of Warsaw, the Finance Ministers of Pre-War Poland, etc. I couldn't add comprehensive lists, but I could be bold and add the bits and pieces of sources that I had access to at the time. Since I created the article, other sources have become available too, though they haven't been added to the article yet (and some are in Polish). Confirmation of his family home.[3] A document about his cavalry unit.[4] The New York Times obituary of Antoni's father-in-law, Edward Werner, confirms that Antoni was a Count (by listing the death of his wife).[5] Confirmation that he's considered one of the notable members of his coat of arms.[6] The Polish Biographical Dictionary confirms the title of Antoni's father, Rodryg Dunin.[7] And I have a 1947 letter from Senator Homer Ferguson to Secretary of State George Marshall, which mentions Anton Dunin by name, along with his children and some other relatives, as Ferguson worked with Congressional candidate Alfred Niezychowski (another of my relatives named in the letter) to get Antoni's orphaned children into the United States. It is also my understanding that Ferguson actually added a rider to a Congressional bill, to specifically name the children and help them get into the country (though I have not been able to locate the exact bill, so of course it cannot yet be used as a source). Whether or not anyone chooses to believe me, I can't control. But I am speaking sincerely here: It is my belief that Antoni Dunin passes WP:BIO. If you delete this stub article today, my guess is that sometime in the future, it will just be re-created. I think that deleting it would be a waste, and that ultimately, it would leave Wikipedia weaker than if the stub article were kept for later expansion. If others feel that the article is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia though, and that Wikipedia would be better off without it, well, that's your decision to make. --Elonka 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sincerity of Elonka's position, and do not question her good faith in creating the article. But I believe that even if this additional information were included, there would be a lack of notability meriting its own article. There are many Congressional bills (and senatorial interventions) for the benefit of individual immigrants; there are many many nobles, especially if we expand the concept of notability to include relatively minor nations on the world stage; there are many relatives of people who had New York Times obituaries or entries in biographical dictionaries. So long as we have a WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#NEWS guidelines, these are not enough for notability for individual articles. I further note that many dead-tree and Wikipedia biographies include information about a subject's parents and children, and nothing prevents Elonka or others from updating the articles for Dunin's father and children with information about Dunin. I do note a certain unfairness, as we tolerate far less notability than Dunin has when it comes to articles about local bar bands, but that is an issue outside the scope of this AFD. THF 07:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, before casting my vote can someone clarify to me if Nobility immediately signifies notability according to WP guidelines, as alluded to by user Elonka? Honestly, I'm not sure. There are literally thousands and thousands of titled people throughout history, many, many (if not most) of which I would argue fail WP:BIO. If Nobility does not = Notability, and with the apparent lack of RS, then this article seems to fail. If Nobility = Notability then its a pass on that merit alone, provided of course that his entitlement can be established through RS, which shouldn't be too difficult I would think. --Trippz 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability comes from sources, not from our own original made-up criteria. Anyone who asserts "being an X makes a thing automatically notable" is either misguided, or is oversimplifying the situation. Saying "A Nobel prize winner is automatically notable" is correct if what you really mean is "someone who has won a Nobel prize would surely have lots of coverage in proper sources". Friday (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friday, with respect I disagree with that. Sometime we set arbitrary inclusion standards. Receiving a Pulitzer prize or an Olympic medal is inherently notable, regardless of whether or not they've been covered in the press. This is especially the case when dealing with things that happened in the past, for which judging the amount of popular attention is more difficult. As a more current example, take a look at WP:BAND. Criteria #8 says "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" and #9 says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". No external coverage is required in addition to that. Are we really saying that we will include all bands that have won a major music award, but not all soldiers who have won a major bravery award? That result seems incongruous to me. WjBscribe 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see those kinds of criteria as rules of thumb about what sorts of things will tend to be notable, rather than a definition of what makes them notable. Perhaps it's a small distinction. If by "notable" we just mean "suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia", then the subjects must have sufficient coverage to allow a properly sourced article. I disagree with most of the subject-specific notability rules for this reason. If you really break it down, the only way we know someone has won a grammy, for example, is that there are lots of sources that cover that sort of thing. Friday (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'd commented to this article, this leads to the same question we had the MILHIST criterion (though since cleared up in this case): what if an individual satisfies a notability guideline, but there are no independent sources with which to write the article? Do we create a stub that will never be expanded? Do we expand what would otherwise be a stub with original research, as was done here? I think the answer is - must be - that satisfying a notability guideline doesn't mean that we must have an article, only that we can have one if and only if we have reliable independent sources with which to write it. Put another way, guidelines don't trump policy.Proabivouac 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thatcher has said that " the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction" Actually according to the Wilipedia article he linked "Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, forming some 10%-12% of the total population and almost 25% among ethnic Poles[8]," - Clearly if 1 in 4 ethnic poles were szlachta, in the case of Poland, noble does not automatically equal notable. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that simply being szlachta alone is not sufficient for notability. The term szlachta is one of those words that doesn't have a direct easy translation to English, though I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on the subject. Some might define it as "gentry", others as "noble class," but neither of those really hits it either. In any case, I would point out that even among the szlachta there were distinctions. Some were considered of the noble class, while still effectively living as poor peasants. Others were landowners and wielded considerable power. And a few (very few) others actually had hereditary titles. It is my opinion that those with the titles, meet the "notability" standard. I can say from my own personal research on family trees, that I would often see genealogists in past generations bending over backwards to expand the boundaries of their own trees, to prove a link to someone with a title, even if it was a "third-cousin by marriage" or something. For another example, on family crests, there are usually various symbols, and sometimes those symbols reflected great power, such as actually having a crown. Antoni Dunin's crest had this.[9] I have primary sources on multiple family heirlooms which verify this crest. For example, this painting which was hanging in Antoni Dunin's home (pre-1939) [10] and other documents and a few dishes. Proof of the importance of the title is also reflected by other family relationships, which proved that Antoni Dunin wasn't an isolated szlachta, but was a member of an influential and intellectual family. His marriage (1933 wedding pic) was an example of one family with a title (Dunin) marrying another family which had even more financial power (Werner). Antoni's wife Sophia was the daughter of the vice-Finance Minister Edward Werner; niece of Jan Czarnowski, Papal Chamberlain to Pope Pius XI; great-niece of an extremely influential priest who has since been canonized, Saint Raphael Kalinowski, who himself had been tutor to Prince August Czartoryski. This was a major family in Poland. I could list other relatives, but this list is getting long enough. ;) For one last example though, Rodryg Dunin is listed as "hrabiego" here.[11] That "Hrabia" title is not used for all szlachta -- it's a specific noble and hereditary title, which is why I feel that it is relevant for notability. --Elonka 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better to be able to establish importance independently. For example, by being listed in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. The problem with Antoni is that without a significant independent measure of importance, we are left to decide whether the various aspects of his life add up to importance, and that will always be subjective. Does his title, status as a decorated war casualty, and marriage to the daughter of an important person add up to a "notable" life (as the term is used here). Or, to put it another way, how likely is it that users around the world will someday want to know more about this person? Thatcher131 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it comes down to an odd distinction we are hashing out here. A modern musical group can have an article if they win a major music award (criteria #8 of WP:BAND). Who will want to someday know more about all of them? I don't know. But we seem to not be proposing to include all soldiers who received major bravery awards. That bothers me as it seems to indicate an inherent bias in Wikipedia - are we really that much more focused on modern music than historical bravery in combat? Seems to me we're in the process of giving our critics a lot of ammunition... WjBscribe 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you find an example of a band that has won a major award but for which no other independent sources exist, then we can talk. Until then, its a straw man argument. Thatcher131 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on hundreds of Olympic medalists (surely a major award) with no other independent sources existing or likely to show up. Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis, Telemachos Karakalos, Louis Glineux, ... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that AnonEMouse - to take as an example the first example you gave, without looking at the others, 128 google hits for Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis from a wide variety of sources, and that article is a stub. Maybe I am misunderstanding regarding what is termed as independent source? Striking through, as I understand what AnonEMouse is saying now about sources •CHILLDOUBT• 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the New York Times article is your reason to keep, you may wish to reconsider: it's an obituary for his wife's father and doesn't mention Antoni Dunin at all (I have the pdf right here).Proabivouac 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. I hate to belabor this since I normally avoid AfD and I do not like to have to criticize someone's heartfelt and sincere hard work. But, the NY Times reference is an obituary for Edward Werner. It says "Surviving are a daughter, Mrs. Maria Ciechomska of Warsaw, and a son, Lieut. Karol Werner of the Polish Army in England. Another daughter, Countess Zophia Dunin, was killed by German machine gun bullets early in the recent war." That's not bad as a genealogical source but it doesn't do anything to establish the importance of Zophia's husband (who isn't even named) as a subject for an encyclopedia entry. Thatcher131 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let's Elonka explain that little misunderstanding regarding Virtuti Militari. However I think you got that one wrong. The title of the article: "Edward Werner, Ex-vice Minister of Finance of Poland had Lectured Here" doesn't seem like an obituary to me; more like a review made by NYU or Columbia officials? Maybe there was another one in this particular issue of New York Times? greg park avenue 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Image:Werner 1945-11-17.pdf. Thatcher131 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You were right. There was only an info about his wife - Zofia Dunin - killed by German bullets in 1939. So, I shifted this reference to its proper place. The other reference I checked also, is non-negotiable, so, there was one Antoni Dunin distinguished by a Virtuti Militari cross after the war. Elonka just misplaced the references. No big deal. Doesn't look like hoax to me. Still vote to keep it strong, even with NYT as secondary source this time. greg park avenue 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. There appear to be no independent sources which discuss Antoni Dunin, making it impossible to write an article without violating our source policies.Proabivouac 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Ref 1 is too trivial. Ref 6 is about his father-in-law. Epbr123 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 has this to say about Antoni Dunin: "Dunin, Antoni." I suppose we could write, "Antoni Dunin was a recipient of the Polish Virtuti Militari award," but that's not enough to justify an article.Proabivouac 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go to the StandWithUs article and find me at least one independent secondary source in it. Then we may talk about justice. greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate it for deletion, and send me the heads up so I can weigh in. Of course it's possible that somebody will say, Antoni Dunin was kept, so StandWithUs must be kept, too. You have to start somewhere, and, that somewhere is inevitably the item which has been nominated.Proabivouac 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Epbr123 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Proabivouac, it's not my department to post AfDs, never made one. greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google books] has links to some things, but they're all in a foreign language. Anyone here read Polish? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will try. Thanks! greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were right. There is another independent source in form of a book by a very well known Polish writer Jerzy Korczak: Cóżeś ty za pani: o walkach armii "Poznań" 12-19 września 1939 r. - Page 240

by Jerzy Korczak - 1983 - 328 pages. And here is an exerpt from this book, unmistakenly our Antoni Dunin: W straży przedniej kolumny południowej szedł trzeci szwadron piętnastego pułku, którym dowodził porucznik Antoni Dunin. It means: In the first southern column of the 15th brigade went the 3rd squadron, which was led by Lt. Antoni Dunin.


[12] greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is sad as a lot of work goes into these pages and I have seen a lot of these family pages but I'm afraid they are of no interest or value to anyone not related to the subject. Dunin was probably a very nice and brave man and it is a sad story but even this coupled with being married to the niece of a saint does not make one notable. These sort of pages need to be bound up on real paper and given to his descendents who will value them but this is not what Wikipedia is for. The encyclopedia has to be known for being credible and providing valuable information on valuable subjects, there are many family tree and genealogy sites who would welcome these pages - why not take it there. Giano 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then shucks, I guess we need to start deleting every single Medal of Honor winner, Gold Star winner, Silver Star winner, Navy Cross winner, Victoria Cross winner, etc.... because 90% of them have as much claim to fame as this guy. This has nothing to do with decendancy, this has everything to do with attacking the article because of who wrote it, something I think you would be quite familiar with.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the one verifiable tidbit about this guy is his getting this medal, isn't the obvious solution to merge him and all the others into some List of recipients of Virtuti Militari article? There's no way to have an actual bio article on this guy with such little verifiable info on it. For those of you obsessing over editors rather than content, knock it off. Don't assume other people can't see past the personalities, just because you can't. Friday (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, probably into Dunin (surname) or Rodryg Dunin. There is some verifiable information here specifically about this particular man. Not only the medal list but also the reference in Korczak's book on which unit he commanded. The Google Books search suggests that some patient work at a Polish library might yield more, though of course we can't keep it on that basis. A personal family history website is not an ideal source but I'm not sure it should be categorically ruled out either. For the sake of full disclosure I'll note that Elonka mentioned this AfD in a private discussion with me. I don't think that's canvassing since she had asked me for advice on this article before it was nominated and it was natural to follow up on that now. Besides, I don't even agree with her. Haukur 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe that all VM recipients are notable as such, just like recipients of the Légion d'honneur or the Medal of Honor. Sure, some info on what did he get it for would be nice, but even without it the article is fine. Secondly, the problem of family web pages is much more simple to me. If the alternative is either to have a two-sentence stub linked only to external sources or a broader, better article with facts published on his family's website, I'd rather we went for the latter. //Halibutt 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As for AndyFinkenstadt, I see him on a daily basis (he works down the hall). I think I told him that I was going to be going up for RfA soon, when we went out for sushi last week."[13] Proabivouac 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being royalty or the recipient of the medal of honor doesn't make someone notable. Being written about makes someone notable. Epbr123 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already voted but this is a comment on the quality of the article, should it be decided to keep it, or the articles about any other Dunin family members. The article should be impartial, but right now it seems that the wording of the text is giving greater prominence to the individual than he actually merits. For instance, he was awarded the "prestigious" Virtuti Militari, he was a "nobleman," though as Thatcher pointed out, the term szlachta can be applied to 10-12 percent of the Polish population,i.e., 2.5-3 million people in 1939 (discounting ethnic minorities). Further examples include, "His brother was immortalized in the 1922 painting ..." as well as "great-niece of the man who would become ..." While he was killed in combat, we have no idea why he was awarded the Virtuti Militari--compare to articles about people who won the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross, where there is considerable detail about their heroism. IN fact, 66,000 Polish soldiers died in the invasion--what makes Dunin distinct? BTW, I could make the same case for the article about Rodryg Dunin, who is called "one of the most remarkable pioneers of progress in farming techniques and industry in Greater Poland." Finally, I have voted above to delete this article, but even if it does stay, it (and the related articles) should do away with the hyperbole and present a simple account of the man's life--not his father, his brother, his father-in-law, or his wife's great-uncle. The way it is written now is deceptive. He was not royalty, and he was not a recipient of the "medal of honor." Danny 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems notable enough... I wonder if this article would survive in the polish wiki? I think here there are far too many people expressing opinions on subjects they know far to little about. I also think that its wrong to claim OR here as obviously Elonka had to have sources to create the tree to begin with... EnsRedShirt 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, w/ condition - I do not agree that being of noble class makes him notable, however, the Virtuti Militari decoration does seem to help meet the WP:BIO suggested requirements. I am a bit confused about the ranking of the Virtuti Militari, because in the VM article it indicates the Order of the White Eagle is the highest award. I suspect it is the inclusion of civilians that separate the two distinctions and perhaps a clarification should be added to the two articles. My understanding is that the class of the VM is dependent upon rank, so the class he was awarded should not influence the decision of voters. Apparently the VM has been awarded a great number of times, over 8,400 from 1920-1939 alone (and over 1,600 previously from 1806-1815). This totals over 10,000 VM since its creation. This is compared to 3,444 MoH awards since creation in 1862 and 1,356 Victoria Cross awards since creation in 1856. It is true that there is a striking disproportion between the number of times that each respective government has awarded their "highest military award", but I think a historical prospective should also be taken into account. Poland was facing extinction (and temporarily was extinct) at the hands of an overwhelming force. To this end my condition would be to include in the article a RSed account of the reason for which Dunin was awarded the Virtuti Militari. My concern is that without knowing the full details, Dunin may have been awarded the VM out of a show of respect for sacrifice and not because he went above and beyond. Looking at the sheer number of VM awards during this period actually seems to decrease the notability of the award itself. However, it still remains the highest military award one can receive in Poland, so that distinction should be respected as well. Intuitively one would think that anyone who received the highest military award would have done something notable in order to receive it. While sacrificing his life for defense of his country is unquestionably an honorable act, there were in fact thousands more who sacrificed their lives as well and were not awarded the VM. So to that end, what did he do to receive the distinction? The article stands incomplete until this additional information is supplied with RS. If this information is unavailable (destroyed, etc.) I would regrettably feel the article should be removed until the information can be supplied. We should remember that it is not the AWARD which makes a person notable, but it is the DEED for which they were awarded that truly makes them notable. An awarded decoration is just a symbol, a shiny little badge, and many awardees often remark how little it means to them. It is the deed that makes them notable, not the button on their jacket. --Trippz 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are five independent secondary sources now, two supplied by Elonka, one by me and two by Halibutt. The reference No 8 supplied by Halibutt answers your question in full. See here. It's an article written by Juliusz Tym in a military journal. It's reconstruction of the fight at the river Bzura - one of the most bloody charges of this campaign (September '39), and even we Polish call it stupid, when Polish cavalry with sabres and light firearms stormed the German tanks, actually a suicide run. It'a a very rare example of heroism and Antoni Dunin was in the first line. It shows that this VM (granted posthumously of course) was well deserved. Thanks! greg park avenue 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to comprehend as an individual, but a ridiculous amount of people have a relative, or even several, that have accomplished things. A sense of family pride is inevitable no matter how objective you try to be. If the subject were notable by Wikipedia's standards, a completely unrelated person (and not someone that the original editor knows, either, as much as I hate to have to point that out) would have created the article. As Danny mentioned above, even the writing style and wording used seemed to be trying to "make the case" for notability even before it was questioned, which speaks volumes, in my opinion. Third party sources are needed; not a family tree, or sources that only verify the facts, but something that shows why these facts are important. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability isn't subjective. If this person has won the highest military award, then they are notable, per WP:BIO. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." If the tone of the article is incorrect, anyone can fix it. We don't delete articles because of tone. - Jehochman Talk 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that notability is objective, but I seriously question whether an award given three times as often as the Medal of Honor to members of a military a tiny fraction of the size of that of the United States' is a "significant recognized award or honor." If they gave out 100,000 Medals of Honor, we'd stop thinking of it as significant, but that's the effective ratio of the Virtuti to the Polish population. There clearly has to be a line somewhere: If Malawi announced that they were giving every soldier in its military its nation's highest military honor, would they all qualify under WP:BIO? THF 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I didn't take a position, because it's not clear whether he received the highest award. Apparently the Virtuti Militari has several flavors, some rare, and some not so much. We don't write articles about every Purple Heart and Bronze Star winner, though they may certainly be brave and worthy of being remembered. - Jehochman Talk 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. If all you have is a handful of listings on-line which mention just the subject's name or other minor details in a single sentence, that doesnt qualify for notability. You have to have significant (non-trivial) coverage by multiple reliable sources in order to justify an article on Wikipedia. In the case of Antoni Dunin, there's not a single non-trivial reliable source. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". Since the coverage is trivial, the content could be merged into List of recipients of Virtuti Militari as some have suggested. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by the Virtuti Militari award, I don't think multiple non-trivial sources are also required here. The sources seem to be enough to write a stub about him - there are some details of his military career (see source #8 - Juliusz Tym (2005). Kawaleria w bitwie nad Bzurą (Cavalry in the Battle of Bzura). Polonia Militaris. Retrieved on August 24, 2007) and the details of his marriage (sourced to the NewYork Times) for starters. Plus a fictional character based on him in a book by a notable Italian author. WjBscribe 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Jehochman mentioned above, its not clear if the award he won was of the highest rank. If it had been a significant award, reliable sources would have covered him in more detail than just putting him in a list of 10,000 other names. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its been established that the level of award relates only to the number of men commanded so I'm not sure thats relevant. As to coverage - well of course most of it will be in Polish and on paper, which makes it difficult to dig up at short notice. Though given the surprising amount that has been turned up during this AfD I am sure more is out there. In the unlikely event that this article was deleted, I am sure it would end up being recreated in the future once more material has been located. There is a difference between material not having been found and it not existing - you seem very certain that it does not exist (I guess that helps your case) but the amount of mentions being found seems to indicate the contrary. WjBscribe 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) There wasnt any "short notice". The article had been tagged asking people for more references since about a month now. 2) As I said, all the amount of mentions found have been trivial. Also, although I couldnt verify it, but an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia said that this award was given to 17,400 people in the 20th century and to a total of 25,000 people throughout history. Adding in his opinion, he also said that he believed that getting this award doesnt make someone automatically notable. He also said that very few people (less than 600) were given higher than the 5th ranking award, so there's a less than 2.4% chance that Antoni Dunin was given the highest ranking award. The article can always be recreated if there's is enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, but being one name in a list of 25,000 doesnt suggest imply notability in my opinion at this point and the article has existed long enough to give people the time to find non-trivial reliable sources. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link Matt! If only 600 people got higher than the 5th level award (and Shell Kinney has been able to confirm Dunin got a third level one [14]) that makes his award a lot more distinctive an accolade than I thought.... WjBscribe 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a 3rd level award, thats not the highest award so, it doesnt qualify for notability. If he had won the highest (level 1) award, then he would qualify for notability. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the discriminating criteria between the levels is number of men commanded (rather than different levels of heroism, valour etc.), there isn't much argument for restricting it to the first level ones only. The argument against including all of them was shear numbers, but you have reassured me that there are sufficiently few above level 5 that this isn't really a problem in this case. Whichever level he did get, it would have been the highest level available to his rank. WjBscribe 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt verify Shelly's claim of "number of men commanded", nor his claim that Antoni won the 3rd level award. All we know is that there's no reliable source that confirms the type of award that Antoni received, and whether he even commanded a group of men or was just a soldier. He could be commanding 3 men for all we know and then that wouldnt fall in line with the spirit of "nation's highest military award" (which is why they have 5 classes). Bottomline: we dont know what type of award he got. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not get carried away here Matt, ref #8 makes it pretty clear he wasn't just commanding 3 men... WjBscribe 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt find out anything about the number of men he commanded from the 8th ref. Regardless of the number of men commanded (even if he did), we agree that he did not receive the highest award. Note that award could also be: "Alternatively for staff officers for their cooperation with their commanders, that led to the final victory in a battle or war", so he could just have been awarded for being a single soldier and cooperating with his commanders. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I must agree with the rationale given by Thatcher among others. The article is quite misleading in that it seems to claim he won the highest military decoration awarded by a country, when in fact reading the above debate, it seems he won only a subordinate award (i.e. not the "highest decoration"). ugen64 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Merge per Haukur, but that is a normal editing action, not a deletion). It would be nice to have a source for the class of tne Virtuti Militari, and the reason for it; but I see no reason to doubt the claim here that it is Class III, which would be unquestionably notable. (And such sources may exist; if the Polish Government has the documentation of the Order, they may well have published it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PMAnderson and others; I see multiple reliable sources, especially since the expansion. A merge might be more approriate; I think merges should be used more often in non-fiction topics, because they strengthen ideas into an greater whole that has a better chance of showing solid notability. In addition: lots of people have worked hard on it, WP:N is a guideline (not policy), it is useful/interesting, other similar articles exist, notability is inherited, it does not do any harm, Wikipedia should be about everything, fame, the google test, repeated nominations, etc. — Deckiller 02:19, 27 August 2007 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoni_Dunin_(2nd_nomination)