Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Arkusz

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Michal Arkusz.

See also:

Further comments can be made below.

The result of the debate was to delete the page.

• Michal Arkusz - seems to be a wannabee-politician, no google hits.
  Remove also references on 1981 and March 31 -- JeLuF 00:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I vote to Delete. The article appears to be autobiographical. I think that the neutrality of the article is also doubtful, by the way. Lord Emsworth 00:44, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • I've listed this on Cleanup for added exposure. I agree that this person ought not to have an entry in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 00:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it. See also
    Jozef Arkusz, Naczelnik and other edits by User:68.98.126.213. Andy Mabbett
    01:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See also edits by User:Sanacja -- JeLuF 01:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Jozef Arkusz, he is listed in both Polish and International Encyclopedias, so there is no reason for his entry to be deleted. Censorship should not be selectively applied, on here or in real life. Sanacja
    • Who has suggested deleting
      Jozef Arkusz? Andy Mabbett
      01:31, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hesitant I first, reading that "Sanacja.... claims (as of November 2003) to have 39 members" makes it pretty obvious that this is Bradfordistic. orthogonal 01:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Again, why is it that other small political parties can have references on here, yet our party cannot. The site on Michal Arkusz is a reference to a leader of a political party, which albeit small is a real party. Why censor it? Sanacja 01:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Which other small parties are you refering to? Please respond on my talk page. -- Cyan 02:06, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Folks, this is a new user who doesn't yet know our conventions. Let us be gentle. (I'm not saying anyone hasn't been gentle, just that we should continue to be.) Sanacja, the essence of the objection to this entry is simply that we prefer people and political entities to be well-known before they are recorded in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 02:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. You can remove the link to Michal Arkusz then, since I admit that he is not known. But Sanacja is a very well known party that played a crucial role in Poland during the interwar period. I represent the renewed Sanacja party, and I thought it only appropriate that we include some information on our fledgling politics. Sanacja 02:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's accurate though. Sanacja is a fairly well-known and historically important Polish party. Is it widely recognized that the party you represent is in fact the same party, not a new upstart party that has coopted a famous name? I could, for example, start the United States Whig Party, claiming it to be a revival of the
    United States Whig Party, but that would not necessarily make it so. --Delirium
    02:29, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • That would definitely not make it the
      United States Whig Party, which I revived and am Maximum Leader of. orthogonal
      03:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If you went through all the motions of starting the political party, along with recruiting members, holding meetings, discussing policies for fundraising and growth, you would indeed be a political party. The fact is that there is no Sanacja party in Poland, and the Polish community here in Arizona decided to renew it under the same name. What is wrong with this? Sanacja 02:35, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • " there is no Sanacja party in Poland". Well, quite. Andy Mabbett 02:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • That does not mean there is no Sanacja!Sanacja 03:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • [[Sanacja]]has just added this to my User page: "I provided citations for the information that was disputed, as for the parties current status you can come to one of our meetings and find out for yourself. Stop slandering us and altering our information." Andy Mabbett 03:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • This entire argument is with one person who seems intent on portraying Sanacja as a party that has something to do with Hitler. Andy Mabbett why? Like I said, you can come to one of our meetings and see that we have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or anything else you wrote about us. I'm not going to play this game of you adding, me deleting, you adding, me deleting slanderous material. Also, I cited sources that verify the accuracy of the information provided, and you still keep adding disputes and deleting my comments. Again, why? What do you have against Sanacja, and what is your problem? Sanacja 03:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A fallacious and disingenuous response. Andy Mabbett 04:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • OK, whatever, I'm done with this argument. Edit the page as you will, it doesn't alter the truth. Sanacja 04:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. More self-aggrandizement. The secret is out, toot your horn here. Daniel Quinlan 04:46, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • I have changed the page to include as little information as possible, and to be as neutral and censored as I can without making it useless. Do as you wish with it. Sanacja 05:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • In regards to the
    Sanacja page I say keep it, but I would agree that the Michal Arkusz article is a bit too obscure. an entry in Modern Sanacja would suffice at least until the individual is of some larger importance. The exclusion of an article is not saying that it is an unimportant subject per se, but merely that it is too obscure and not generally relevant to warrant its own seperate article. Every human being on earthis important, but we cant turn this into the white pages. AQBachler
    06:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too little significance for the individual so far. I've listed Sanacja (1999) on November 23 for an independent vote on it. Jamesday 04:46, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Remember to delete the accompanying picture (Image:Arkusz.jpg). Maximus Rex 00:07, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New comments should only be made below this line.

All the Sanacja-related deletion discussion should go on a single page. If I can find it all.