Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (3rd 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. --Core desat 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodryg Dunin

This text relies almost entirely on the Polish equivalent of the "Who's Who", the Polish Biographical Dictionary, which has over 25,000 entries. The text is almost directly copied from the article. After jumping through hoops with admins that I needed to verify this article in Polish (which required downloading the information for a fee), the information did not even coincide with what was being referenced. Notability questioned, for one, accuracy of information, for two, and lack of sources, for three. Mindraker 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Canley 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What information did you download for a fee, and from where? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin 2) except for improvements - much of the OR is gone. But the subject is clearly notable having an entry in the Polski słownik biograficzny - the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography. It has 25,000 entries because its scope is all notable people in Polish history and is a highly regarded text - to suggest our inclusion standards are higher is absurd. The dictionary is a perfectly acceptable source as non-English sources are acceptable and widely used in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a global project - there are Polish editors who can review this source. One has indeed provided a rough translation on the talkpage. If this translation is not enough, another can be sought. We are going to create a huge anglo-US bias if we start rejecting foreign sources so casually. WjBscribe 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am the nominator) Delete -- the article contains flat-out plagiarized quotes from the PBD. Mindraker 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now that allegation I object to - the source is in Polish and the text is not. Be very careful about the difference between copying and translating - especially where the translation is not (as in this case) word for word before making such allegations. WjBscribe 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is a difference between rewording and translating word for word. In addition, when you have whole paragraphs and sections coming from the PBD, you can't pretend this isn't a case of plagiarism. Mindraker 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think the phrasing is too close, reword it though I challenge your assertion that this is a word-for-word translation. They certainly have no copyright on the order they cover topics in. WjBscribe 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have altered several passages to try and address your concerns but looking again at the rough translation at Talk:Rodryg Dunin#Translation needed, I cannot see how your allegations of plagiarism are made out. The original text contains all sort of Peacock language - for example "Under his enlightened mentorship many young farmers flocked" is in the article as "he also mentored young farmers". The flowery prose of the originally doesn't seem present in the article... WjBscribe 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I'll give you an example, the first paragraph:

"Rodryg Dunin [...] is recognised as one of the most notable pioneers in agricultural techniques and agricultural industry in early 20th century Greater Poland.[1]"

Here is the translation provided on the discussion page: "Dunin Rodrug, farmer and industrialist, was one of the most notable pioneers in agricultural techniques and agricultural industry in Wielkopolska."

And then the Polish: "Dunin Rodryg (1870—1928), rolnik i przemysłowiec, był jednym z wybitniejszych pionierów postępu techniki rolniczej i przemysłu rolnego w Wielkopolsce."

Look similar? I'd say it does. Mindraker 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it now reads, "His work in agricultural industry, including pioneering new techniques, earned him considerable recognition among the farming circles of early 20th century Greater Poland." That seems to address your concern - why are we doing this at AfD rather than on an a talkpage? AfD is not for article cleanup... WjBscribe 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the tip of the iceberg -- that still doesn't address the fact that all the information in this article can be found in the PBD article (in sequential order, no less!), with the exception of the image citation. The two "Polish Daily" references at the bottom? That's nice. None of the text comes from there. Mindraker 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone has prob deleted the information claiming it as OR. Or maybe they don't say anything not also in the PBD (so they are essentially sourcing the same info). But in any event, the PBD would be acceptable as the only source for the aritcle. WjBscribe 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead and verify that information for us, since you made me verify the information in the Polish PBD. Mindraker 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (per WP:SPEEDY). Then I suggest discussing whether nominator's behavior - trying to damage encyclopedic content - has been disruptive and pointless enough - to warrant a block. As far as I see it, this AfD is bad faith disruption.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's tone down the personal attacks, and focus on the article's issues, such as plagiarism, the lack of sources, etc. This isn't the first time I have asked you to tone down the personal attacks. Mindraker 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to accuse people of personal attacks whenever they criticise you. Piotrus feels your conduct is disruptive, I am minded to agree. Perhaps you'd like to consider that? WjBscribe 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I try to avoid WP:SPADE, your behavior regarding this article is highly disruptive and it is high time it was pointed out as such. And reasonable criticism of your person backed up by evidence of disruption (such as this very AfD) is not a personal attack, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominems are easy, focusing on the flawed article, with plagiarized sources is hard. Try focusing on the presented issues at hand. Mindraker 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attack here is your accusation of plagiarism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plagiarism accusation really is unreasonable - especially as you don't read Polish yourself. Please either detail the sentences you believe are too close in wording to the original source material or withdraw the allegation. WjBscribe 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :We're looking for multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Polish Biographical Dictionary is the only one. I'll change my vote if someone can bring me just one more non-trivial source. Plaguirism could be dealt with rephrasing so I think we can use this PBD source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where we have one excellent source one source is enough. The requirement of multiple sources is where notability is in doubt - someone sufficiently important for an entry in a national biographical dictionary is clearly notable enough. Wikipedia surely cannot have a harsher notability standard than a national print work of scholarly repute..? WjBscribe 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reliable source is perfectly compliant with our policies. I applaud you for having higher standards, but they are not a valid rationale for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WJBscribe. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 29 October 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.