Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk

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. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Oleszczuk

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

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

She was only known by being shown as one of the members of the consultative council (which notability seems to be ambiguous). During protests against tightening abortion law in Poland, she gave only some interviews to some polish broadcasting and media services. As of my convience it's not suffiecient reason to be acknowledged as a notable person. In an interview given for "Radio Zet " she confessed she had been appointed to the council after her boyfriend resigned from being in the council and gave his seat to her. Link to the talk with Oleszczuk^[1] The Wolak (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge notability is not temporary and the sources cited in the article indicate that she received significant coverage for her activities. If not kept, should be merged with another article rather than deleting. (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Coverage as primary topic in mainstream news media 1 Dec 2020 Wirtualna Polska; member of activist coordination council created during Poland's biggest protests since the 1989 fall of the communist government, 1 Nov 2020 Gazeta Wyborcza. The fact that Oleszczuk received coverage by a full article in the right-wing Do Rzeczy (see the discussion at Talk:Do Rzeczy), which should be expected to be opposed to her and lack the motivation to amplify her notability, is evidence of notability. The fact that the Wikipedia entry itself had to be protected at 13:53, 6 November 2020 and again a month later at 13:20, 5 December 2020 is circumstantial evidence that Oleszczuk is notable enough that people felt they had to disrupt or vandalise her Wikipedia entry. Boud (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Boud's comments. Meets GNG and has had a sustained presence in media. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important Polish feminist activist. There are many sources about her on the Internet. Bruno Latour (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I've doubts if your opinions are proven by some explanations. The fact that somebody gave some interviews to Television does not judge somebody's notability. We don't have criteria if smb appeared on some broadcast or television then becomes autoencyclopedical The Wolak (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The profile in Forbes (Poland) and her nomination for their 2022 "25 Under 25" list goes beyond "gave some interviews to television" in meeting GNG. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside the Forbes article (paywalled and possibly unreliable, see WP:FORBES), I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Mentions in passing; the Wirtualna Polska article is about something she proposed, not about her. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Forbes article is the sort of various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles mentioned at WP:FORBES, not one of the commentary pieces discussed at WP:FORBESCON. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of WP:SIGCOV is this article in the Wysokie Obcasy (archive) section of Gazeta Wyborcza, one of Poland's two newspapers of record; the article is fully devoted to Oleszczuk; she is the main topic of the source material, which is more than what is needed. Boud (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:INTERVIEW, which is not very good; it's the subject talking about herself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may be considered primary or non-independent when it comes to the statements being made. However, for notability if the media outlet and journalist conducting the interview are independent of the subject, then it is good. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. She looks like she's famous in Poland and Polish newspapers talk about her enough. The article is very detailed and Wikipedia is a place for detailed biographies about living people. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bKnGetHoc

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.

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bKnGetHoc

[1]