Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazimierz Cwojdziński

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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The result was keep as withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimierz Cwojdziński

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

Kazimierz Cwojdziński (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)

This article has been unsourced since 2014, and provides no indication of any notability. I tried prodding it, but Phil Bridger unprodded, without improvements, on the basis that the subject has many Google Books hits. Hits are not notability, and as far as I can see (not reading Polish) most or all of those hits are either trivial mentions or instances of his name as an author of a publication rather than sources about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Sorry to say this, but this is a failure of BEFORE. You don't need to read Polish, Google Translate is simple - and you could have just Google Translated the interwiki'd Polish article, which clearly cites two in-depth sources, encyclopedias/biographical dictionaries that seem to have an entry on him. That said, I am a bit puzzled I get nothing outside wiki mirrors and such for my search "Kazimierz Cwojdziński" 1878 1948, I'd expect something to come up. Guess his biographies have not been digitized yet? Not a hoax though, I see enough to confirm that there was such a mathematician, dob/dod seems to be in [1]. One Polish source [2] describes him as an "exemplary mathematician" (wybitny matematyk). I'll copy the two in-depth RS form pl wiki, speedy keep, let's move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Polish article in translation, and now-expanded English sub-stub, still do not list any noteworthy accomplishments. What has he done to avoid being a candidate for WP:CSD#A7? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, WP:PROF/GNG have other requirements to listing 'noteworthy achievements', a lot of encyclopedic people don't have them. He has been a subject of at least two dedicated biographical entries in Polish dictionaries/encyclopedias, and at least one source calls him 'exemplary'. He clearly passes GNG (in-depth coverage in at leat two RS). I don't understand your concern? Do you doubt those sources exist? Do you think they are unreliable? PS. I also found one English language source ([3]) that discusses his life in several paragraphs (and seems to be based on his biography in the Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich (Biographical Dictionary of Polish Mathematicians)). Ping User:Russ Woodroofe, User:Jean Raimbault, User:XOR'easter. I think GNG is satisfied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're avoiding the question. Just like GNG and PROF have different requirements, A7 also has different requirements. It allows an article to be deleted when it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". As is true of the current article on Cwojdziński. It does not provide exceptions for articles that have content-free but in-depth sourcing. It is true that we are here at an AfD rather than trying to decide what to do with a speedy deletion tag, but here we are, and AfDs often return speedy delete decisions. So why is Cwojdziński important or significant? Is he just "famous for being famous" or is there something we can add to the article to reassure baffled readers that there was a reason we had an article on him? Usually for academics, even early academics, this is a very low bar to meet — we can point to some research publication and say "they discovered this". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The PhD dissertation that User:Piotrus found seems to suggest that the subject had a significant role in shaping mathematics education in Poland in the 1930s. I don't think that the dissertation on its own is enough for GNG, but it's a reasonable start. I'd like to know more about these dictionary/encyclopedia entries, which I wasn't able to verify anything about. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) As we are at AfD and not CSD and GNG (to be precise, WP:BASIC) is clearly met, I really don't see your point. I am not avoiding any question; I don't know and particularly care what he is famous for, it is sufficient to me that he has been written about in two other reference works, both of which are now cited in the article. Case closed, speedy keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. As per WP:SD A7, there is no importance for this person. There is no citations, there is nothing that this person did, and the only information that is useful is birth and death. Sorry, this cannot be kept. --Guitarist28 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy passes GNG, the suggestion of an A7 is ludicrous. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than laughing and offering an empty keep argument, maybe you could state what he is known for? What, specifically, could we add to the article to indicate why its subject is important or significant? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A machine translation of the Polish article doesn't reveal any claims of significance. It's short and contains stuff like He obtained post-war employment based on scientific achievements in the field of projective geometry. He published scientific works, among others in Mathematical News, Museum in Lviv, and Parameters in Warsaw. He was also the author of works in German in "Archiv der Mathematik und Physik". Merely publishing isn't enough for wiki-notability; there must be evidence that the work was influential. XOR'easter (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete, with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found or verified to contain significant coverage. Polish wikipedia has different standards than English wikipedia. While there is no requirement that sources be in English or online, it is difficult to tell what is in the sources listed, or whether they constitute significant coverage for GNG. It looks likely to me that these source are closer to passing mentions than to significant coverage. WP:NPROF is unlikely to apply for this mathematician working 100 years ago, but for what it's worth, his zbMath profile lists 9 papers published between 1900 and 1910 [4]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete reading the (google-tranlated) polish article his research work in mathematics does not appear significant nor does he seem to have had a significant role at the higher education establishments in Poznań where he lectured. In the article his teaching work is emphasised; this does not seem at present sufficent to keep but if it can be shown with reliable sources that he was influential in the teaching of mathematics in Poland the article should be kept. jraimbau (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation if evidence of notability is found at a later date. I'll note that WP:PROF is mostly geared towards the living and currently active researchers, and applying it to those working a century or more ago is tricky, but treating him as a historical figure, there just doesn't appear to be enough to warrant a biography here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral The thesis mentioned above is helpful, but if the biographical information it provides is the entirety of what the Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich had to say, then that entry would not be very substantial. The discussion in that thesis of Cwojdziński's writings about mathematics education would be a good supplement to the bare biographical sketch, but that discussion is also rather brief. Consequently, the article seems rather firmly planted in a gray area. (WP:BASIC: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added an English language reference which has a little background on him. He seems to be a significant contributor to a number of journals which I am not familiar. I would lean towards keeping since there is a fuller article on Polish wikipedia (which relies on two polish language biographical encyclopedias) but unfortunately does not have inline citations. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • All mathematicians publish in journals. It's a basic activity of the job. In order to establish notability, we have to have evidence that those publications were influential. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The evidence of notability is that the subject passes WP:GNG by virtue of entries in Wielkopolski słownik biograficzny and Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich, a general encyclopedia and a mathematical encyclopedia respectively. It seems that various people are rejecting these sources by the fact that they are in Polish, but there is nothing in our notability guidelines that mandates sources in English. Maybe not everyone taking part in this discussion understands Polish, but Piotrus and I do, and I, for one, would appreciate it if others could assume good faith in this matter. It has long been accepted that people who have entries in such print encyclopedias from independent reliable sources should have Wikipedia entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is your evidence that anyone in the discussion is unwilling to allow Polish-language sources? It seems to me that what the discussion is unwilling to allow is sources that say that the subject existed but provide no detail about what he is known for. And before you go pointing to my nomination statement again, read it this time and note that my objection to the sources was not over their language, but rather that from my necessarily-somewhat-superficial scan of them they did not appear to provide substantive coverage of them. The language affected how deeply I could investigate them, but not my reason for objecting to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my statement above. Yes, it's true that I didn't improve this article when I contested WP:PROD deletion, but that was simply because I have other demands on my time, such as looking after my grandson, and thought that this was such an obvious notability pass that nobody would consider bringing the article to AfD without at least checking whether the available sources in Polish show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other things you don't appear to have time for include at least checking what the AfD nomination actually says about checking sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get why you are criticising me here, as you usually seem to be quite a level headed chap who doesn't take the all-too-common line that only modern anglophone white males can be notable. You said in the deletion nomination that you don't read Polish. Then maybe it would be better to check with people who do before moving from WP:PROD to WP:AFD? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am also puzzled along the same lines. I speak Polish, I am hardly known as an inclusionist, and I explained above why the sources are reliable and why the subject passes BASIC. I don't understand why David has not withdrawn this nom yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because despite all of your content-free blustering about how this should be a speedy keep or withdrawn, neither you nor anyone else have managed to dig up a single noteworthy thing that Cwojdziński actually did. You keep saying that there are sources, but you won't say what's in those sources that makes him noteworthy. And the Polish article, read through translation, is similarly lacking in any reason to think of him as noteworthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phil Bridger, a concern I have is that the sources seem to have been copied over from the Polish wikipedia without examination. I am unable to determine the depth, and from what I can tell it may be just a brief listing of a line or two. Have you actually been able to look at the sources? (If so, perhaps you would expand the citation information in the article?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I already explained, one of the sources is clearly enough to be used in the cited open access English thesis to discuss the life of the subject in several paragraphs. We don't need to look at the sources when it is clear they are reliable and contain in-depth discussion, expected to be at least one paragraph long and likely, several to dozens. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of sources with a simple google search, seems notable too.GizzyCatBella🍁 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not very strongly in favor of deletion as indicated by my comments but I'm shocked by those people suggesting a content-free article should be kept just because "there are references"---if you cant clearly explain why those references establish notability of the subject (and there was no serious attempt to do so in the response to David Eppstein's and others' questions) then they most likely do not. jraimbau (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability, per WP:GNG, is about the existence of content in sources, not what the sources say. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of sources to the article, but I'm afraid, because of time constraints, I can't accede to demands to provide sourced content immediately. Deletion for lack of notability is supposed to be about the available sources, of which there are many, rather than what is currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per WP:HEY. The existence of in-depth sources about him has been clear for some time in this debate, but newly-added sourced content about being prominent as an underground teacher in WWII is enough to satisfy me that there's actually something he can be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably I should have said this earlier to prevent the premature closure that just happened and was then undone: There is still a delete opinion here by jraimbau (talk · contribs). AfD rules allow speedy closure of withdrawn AfDs only when no participants disagree. So unless jraimbau wishes to change opinions, this should still run the usual period of time for an AfD, although the eventual outcome does not appear to be in much doubt. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kazimierz_Cwojdziński&oldid=1069523376"