938:. It would be nice if that were true, but as the other debate showed, the notability guidelines can become fuzzy in individual cases. Canny genealogists should usually be able to avoid speedy deletion by turning a traditionally non-notable biography into one that at least makes a weak case for notability. In this article, for example, someone has created an article where normally there would be a one-line entry in something like "List of the 10,000 people who have won the Virtuti Militari". That's fine—it's an important honor, let's have articles on all 10,000 people. Other genealogists, however, undoubtedly feel that their ancestor's achievements are of similar (i.e., 1 in 10,000) distinction. This is just the tip of the genealogy iceberg, I tell ya. —
914:, which was also an article apparently created by someone doing genealogical research. While these editors have every right to be proud of the sacrifices of their forebears, in both cases the only claim to notability for our purposes was military service; practically everything else in both articles was original genealogical research or tangential padding. Ancestor cruft is a trickle now; it will likely be a flood in the future. Prepare accordingly. —
778:. Recipients of a country's highest military award are blatantly notable, whether awarded for personal gallantry or for leadership. Is it logical to delete people like this and keep Z list celebrities just because they have acres of tabloid rubbish written about them and live in the computer age? It certainly seems to be if you're a deletionist and worship at the shrine of the great god Googlehits. I despair sometimes! --
116:, contributed by the apparent grand-daughter of the subject. This does not mean that the subject might not have been a good or interesting person; he just wasn't notable/noted in any particular field for a contribution meriting recognition in an encyclopedia. One's ancestry may be important to oneself, but it's generally frowned upon to use Knowledge (XXG) for self-promotion of a biographical sort.-
950:. I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic. I have myself speedy deleted at least two genealogical articles about gentlemen with worthy but not especially notable war service. If someone just does their job, however competently, has not held a senior position and has not received any recognised state reward then they meet speedy deletion criteria without needing to be AfDed. --
718:. Likewise, the core points I made have not been addressed: no matter what claim the Virtuti Militari medal might have in the status of Poland's "highest military honors", the 10,000+ recipients of the Class 5 "Silver" medal are simply not notable within the English language Knowledge (XXG). The medal is much closer to the Army's
789:
line with my own policy on
British decorations that only holders of the VC and GC are automatically notable, plus those who have won one of the next highest awards twice or any other award (or combination) three times. We therefore need to know which class of the Virtuti Militari this officer received. --
788:
here. I, possibly wrongly, assumed that this officer had been awarded one of the higher grades of the decoration. Rereading the description, I think that probably only the top four classes are automatically notable and the fifth is not (although recipients may be on a case-by-case basis) - this is in
684:; nevertheless, the guidelines on that page represent the consensus of a substantial portion of editors working on military-related topics. How you choose to regard them is, of course, up to you; but I rather doubt that they have less support from the editorial community merely for lack of a banner.
225:
all "Medal of Honor" recipients pass WP:BIO criteria, so the Polish equivalent should as well. A legitimate verifiable Source is provided (there are about 5 other sites you can verify this information with, they are all pay sites due to publishing rights). I'm really sick of people listing shit for
255:
Neither can I now... it used to contain something to the effect of "recipients of awards with small numbers of members" things like
Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor, Oscar were listed as examples... but I couldnt find that in the history when I went back through... it did use to be in
512:
Reads like a vanity bio. It would have been better if the sole contributor had published a book and let someone else decide Antoni was worth writing an article about. All the references are to primary sources, except for one about the daughter of the subject of the article (which is not really
876:
medal winner, he merits an article. However, we need to be able to verify other information before we can add it. The information needs to be verified by existing in other, external sources. The
Detroit Free Press article is intriguing, but it is not specifically linked to any facts in the
650:
medal. There is no verifiable source as to why or when such an award was given. In fact, the only reference of such is a Web site list, which itself doesn't source its information -- and lists a dozen Dunins as recipients. How do we even know that this "Antoni Dunin" is the same as the
478:- Agree with above. I'm for inclusion when practical, and I believe notability hurdle has been passed (at least as far as Mil Hist Project has any say). Plus, coordinator is one of the best arbitors in this arena, and he's for inclusion. I'll stand with Kirill.
713:
a "social construct" -- they do not set guidelines applicable to the rest of WP, outside of perhaps those particular articles within their participating editors' interest area. In sum, whatever it might say at WP:MILITARY has no bearing on
691:
was awarded more than 12,000 times, but I doubt anyone is arguing it's somehow less distinguished of an award. Countries that participated in more wars, or had larger military commitments to them, tend to hand out more awards.)
418:
Your having heard of anyone or anything within
Knowledge (XXG) is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should be included, please restate your !vote in light of an applicable guideline or policy such as
320:
decoration, which I think might be the key here). Usually, however, it is expected that information about the action that won the award be provided, especially if this is a (or the) major grounds for claiming
833:
he received the medal, nor give any references except one referring mostly to the subject's daughter's engagement. If it was that notable, his relative surely would have put it in the article. --
990:
based on "highest military decoration" argument. Will this open the floodgates to 10,000 articles about Polish military heroes? Probably not, but if it did, I wouldn't see that as a problem.
856:- As per Kirill Lokshin. Since he's the Mil Hist head, I think he'd know about what's considered notable for a mil hist subject. WP:Music decides about bands, Mil Hist decides on soldiers...
659:, this appears to be an exaggeration. It may be referred to as "Poland's highest military medal", but there are actually five classes of the award, the last of which has been given out over
340:
is this information given that the references are all primary sources, the author of which is the sole contributor to this article (barring minor contributors - typo patrolling)?
663:
10,000 times (since 1939 alone). Compare this to the US Medal of Honor, of which there have fewer than 2000 receipients since the Civil War (during which 1500 were handed out).--
962:. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I would encourage others to write and apply notability guidelines in such a way as to screen out genealogy cruft, and to strictly adhere to
911:
277:
Isn't notability just a guideline for inclusion? IE, if something fails notability, it isn't included, while if something passes, it can be included provided that it is
730:-- again, the sole reference is an unsourced Web site list. Apart from this claim of an award, what else is notable about this individual who died at 32 years of age?--
926:. The difference is that not everyone's ancestor has won their country's top military honour! Most of them can therefore be speedied as completely non-notable. --
153:, unless subject's notability as a medal recipient can be established. Only source listed is simply a list of medal winners-shows that he got it, but little else.
309:
490:
per
Alkivar, provided the reasons why he got the medal are added. If this is his main claim to notability, it should be described in the article.--
598:
and try to find some better citations. I'm with Kirill on this one - to include some but not all from different countries seems wrong to me. -
539:. In some aspects it is similar to the - in other aspects it bears no resembelance, being awarded for the actions of troops under command
398:
This is a sort of okay written article, but on the other hand, I've never heard of this "notable war veteran". Mixed thoughts about this..
458:, the precedent has been that recipients of a country's highest military decoration (e.g. the MoH, VC, HSU, or, in this case, the VM) are
385:
17:
719:
555:
520:
347:
424:
138:
998:
83:
78:
87:
709:
is a
Wikiproject, not a WP guideline or policy. Wikiprojects do not trump general WP standards. They are, as pointed out at
312:
at WPMILHIST - which, although they are not policy, represent a project consensus on the kinds of military persons who are
70:
970:
whenever they catch a whiff of genealogy. Obviously you and others here are already on the case; keep up the good work. —
805:
is a pretty good claim to notability. However, the nominator's concerns need to be addressed. As it stands, it may fail
747:
an official notability guideline, and I think we need to do this ASAP. That it is not yet is confusing as shown above.--
655:? (Hint: we don't, because it's unverifiable). Further, while the article about the medal claims a comparison to the US
1017:
36:
841:
48:. Whether or not to remove the biographical information for which no sources are provided is an editorial decision.
1016:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
688:
618:
and is presented in a verifiable fashion with neutrally phrased language. To not keep this would be a blatant
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
643:
646:. The bio's sole claim to notability is that at some point, prior to his death at 32, the subject received a
382:
226:
deletion because Elonka created it... the fucking person is NOTABLE... revenge listings are against policy.
881:
868:
That he won the medal indicates notability. That we can confirm he won the medal also claims so. However,
401:
570:
please does not read like vanity and all medal of honor recipients and equivalents should be included here
543:
834:
332:
While a high-level award bestows notability, this award is able to be given for a wide range of criteria.
710:
1002:
974:
971:
954:
942:
939:
930:
918:
915:
902:
886:
860:
848:
821:
793:
761:
738:
696:
671:
626:
606:
590:
574:
551:
523:
517:
504:
482:
470:
450:
431:
413:
390:
379:
350:
344:
325:
293:
270:
240:
217:
201:
175:
171:
157:
145:
124:
52:
744:
706:
639:
615:
372:. Antoni Dunnin is a notable war veteran so I see no reason why we would even consider deleting this.
995:
604:
681:
463:
895:
693:
467:
446:
967:
680:
I'm sure people are aware of the absence of some convoluted polyguidelinestyleesssay banner from
197:
154:
754:
497:
264:
234:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
810:
619:
583:
192:
873:
818:
802:
647:
547:
536:
514:
341:
167:
963:
806:
715:
249:
113:
991:
951:
927:
790:
779:
722:, which while certainly an honor, is hardly a qualification for Knowledge (XXG). Finally,
599:
214:
814:
188:
857:
656:
623:
442:
428:
49:
420:
278:
134:
878:
733:
666:
587:
119:
743:
This actually raises a very interesting issue - I would wholeheartly support making
750:
571:
493:
479:
406:
257:
227:
210:
66:
58:
104:
582:
Per
Alkivar. As for a possible relative having created this, it reads typically
899:
872:
and the article needs to then be tagged as a stub and tagged for expansion. As
369:
368:— I concur with Alkivar; this is starting to turn into personal attacks against
290:
586:
and not the blatent vanity alot of us have been exposed to on this website. --
283:
I don't see any independent sources focusing specifically on the topic at hand.
322:
142:
427:
project for guidelines on what is considered notable within that framework.
870:
all unreferenced biographical information in the article needs to be removed
652:
1010:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
898:'s suggestion of improvment of article on military decoration.--
209:
Non-notable, no reliable sources, and COI, as it was created by
285:(Striking out this comment assuming the sources you mention
877:
article; if we could do so it would help a great deal. --
728:
Antoni Dunin is the actual receipient of this single medal
316:
notable (note that this guideline restricts itself to the
622:
toward
English speaking recipients of similar awards.
162:
Unless someone can come up with some reliable sources,
100:
96:
92:
642:
does not have recognised guideline status -- it is a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
910:. This debate reminds me of the recent AfD debate
1020:). No further edits should be made to this page.
687:(As far as numbers are concerned: so what? The
513:relevant to the subject of the article anyway).
8:
809:; all but one of the reference links are
308:(after edit conflict)You might try the
751:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
614:per Alkivar and Kirill Lokshin, meets
535:I suggest some more of you go look at
494:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
248:Where is the medal of honor thing in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
425:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military
462:notable for receiving it (see also
112:Non-notable bio; uncited, entirely
724:no one has a verified source that
638:: As an FYI, so far as I can tell
24:
336:notability for a moment - how
1:
1003:11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
975:02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
955:01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
943:01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
931:00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
919:22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
903:18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
887:04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
861:02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
849:23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
822:05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
794:11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
782:00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
762:17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
739:07:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
697:05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
672:04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
627:22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
607:22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
591:22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
575:22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
524:21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
505:21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
483:21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
471:20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
451:20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
432:22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
414:20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
391:19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
351:22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
326:20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
294:18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
271:04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
241:16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
218:13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
202:12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
176:08:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
158:08:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
146:08:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
125:07:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
46:no consensus, default to keep
53:16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
829:Article doesn't even state
720:Distinguished Service Cross
183:, per Sarah. Consider this
1037:
191:is fufilled and therefore
1013:Please do not modify it.
689:Hero of the Soviet Union
32:Please do not modify it.
817:, and thus unverified.
813:, so it's pretty much
745:WP:MILITARY#Notability
616:WP:MILITARY#Notability
464:WP:MILHIST#Notability
310:notability guidelines
784:Changing my vote to
252:? I can't find it.
783:
736:
669:
122:
1001:
774:
732:
665:
560:
546:comment added by
389:
166:as unverifiable.
118:
114:Original Research
1028:
1015:
994:
892:Conditional keep
884:
874:Virtuti Militari
846:
839:
803:Virtuti Militari
759:
757:
737:
670:
648:Virtuti Militari
602:
559:
540:
537:Virtuti Militari
502:
500:
488:Conditional keep
412:
409:
404:
388:
373:
269:
262:
239:
232:
123:
108:
90:
34:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1018:deletion review
1011:
882:
842:
835:
801:. Recipient of
760:
755:
749:
731:
664:
600:
541:
503:
498:
492:
407:
402:
399:
386:52278 Alpha 771
380:Fenton, Matthew
374:
267:
258:
245:Two questions:
237:
228:
117:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1034:
1032:
1023:
1022:
1006:
1005:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
905:
896:Kirill Lokshin
889:
863:
851:
824:
796:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
748:
741:
700:
699:
694:Kirill Lokshin
685:
675:
674:
657:Medal of Honor
630:
629:
609:
593:
577:
564:
563:
562:
561:
527:
526:
507:
491:
485:
473:
468:Kirill Lokshin
453:
436:
435:
434:
393:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
275:
274:
273:
220:
204:
178:
160:
148:
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1033:
1021:
1019:
1014:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
997:
993:
989:
986:
976:
973:
969:
965:
961:
958:
957:
956:
953:
949:
946:
945:
944:
941:
937:
934:
933:
932:
929:
925:
922:
921:
920:
917:
913:
909:
906:
904:
901:
897:
893:
890:
888:
885:
880:
875:
871:
867:
864:
862:
859:
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
840:
838:
832:
828:
825:
823:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
795:
792:
787:
781:
777:
773:
772:
763:
758:
752:
746:
742:
740:
735:
729:
727:
721:
717:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
698:
695:
690:
686:
683:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
668:
662:
658:
654:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
608:
605:
603:
597:
594:
592:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
557:
553:
549:
545:
538:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
511:
508:
506:
501:
495:
489:
486:
484:
481:
477:
474:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
441:per Alkivar.
440:
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
411:
410:
405:
397:
394:
392:
387:
384:
381:
377:
371:
367:
364:
363:
352:
349:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
266:
263:
261:
254:
253:
251:
247:
246:
244:
243:
242:
236:
233:
231:
224:
221:
219:
216:
212:
208:
205:
203:
200:
199:
198:Daniel.Bryant
195:established.
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
159:
156:
155:Seraphimblade
152:
149:
147:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
121:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1012:
1009:
987:
959:
947:
935:
923:
907:
891:
869:
865:
853:
843:
837:BlueSquadron
836:
830:
826:
798:
785:
775:
725:
723:
711:WP:PROJGUIDE
660:
635:
611:
595:
579:
567:
542:— Preceding
532:
509:
487:
475:
459:
455:
438:
423:and see the
400:
395:
375:
365:
337:
333:
317:
313:
286:
282:
259:
229:
222:
211:Elonka Dunin
206:
196:
184:
180:
163:
150:
135:unverifiable
130:
111:
67:Antoni Dunin
59:Antoni Dunin
45:
43:
31:
28:
819:Ohconfucius
707:WP:MILITARY
644:Wikiproject
640:WP:MILITARY
548:GarrieIrons
396:Weak delete
366:Strong Keep
321:notability.
223:STRONG KEEP
168:Sarah Ewart
139:check ghits
992:JamesMLane
952:Necrothesp
928:Necrothesp
791:Necrothesp
780:Necrothesp
682:WP:MILHIST
653:one listed
601:xiliquiern
439:Stong Keep
383:Lexic Dark
338:verifiable
279:verifiable
215:Kicking222
193:notability
968:WP:Verify
866:Weak keep
858:Spawn Man
624:RFerreira
443:TomStar81
429:RFerreira
50:Sandstein
734:Leflyman
667:Leflyman
588:Oakshade
556:contribs
544:unsigned
460:de facto
334:Assuming
289:exist)--
256:there!
185:stricken
120:Leflyman
960:Comment
948:Comment
936:Comment
924:Comment
908:Comment
894:as per
811:WP:SELF
786:neutral
705:Again,
636:Comment
620:WP:BIAS
584:WP:NPOV
572:Yuckfoo
533:Comment
480:BusterD
318:highest
314:usually
260:ALKIVAR
230:ALKIVAR
84:protect
79:history
964:WP:NOR
900:Dryzen
879:Jayron
827:Delete
807:WP:COI
716:WP:BIO
510:Delete
408:yo cat
376:thanks
370:Elonka
291:Wafulz
250:WP:BIO
207:Delete
181:Delete
164:Delete
151:Delete
131:Delete
88:delete
972:Kevin
940:Kevin
916:Kevin
844:Raven
815:WP:OR
756:talk
499:talk
323:Carom
213:. --
189:WP:RS
143:MER-C
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
988:Keep
966:and
912:here
854:Keep
799:Keep
776:Keep
726:this
661:4500
612:Keep
596:Keep
580:Keep
568:keep
552:talk
476:Keep
456:Keep
447:Talk
421:WP:V
172:Talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
831:why
466:).
187:if
883:32
558:)
554:•
521:ie
518:rr
515:Ga
449:)
348:ie
345:rr
342:Ga
287:do
174:)
141:.
137:,
133:-
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
999:c
996:t
753:|
550:(
496:|
445:(
403:K
378:/
281:?
268:☢
265:™
238:☢
235:™
170:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.