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 delete. Chaser (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman

Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a Canadian poet/artist. However not a single article or mention has been made about him in any Canadian newspaper, either major newspapers, such as the Globe, the Star or the Vancouver Sun or local free newspapers. TFD (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I think Justin's comments above are incredibly strong proof that there is no notability. His works are self published or not published by notable publishers, there are no Gnews hits, and the existing sources are minimal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I did my own check on all of the references used in the article. Many of them are duplicates. One narrative from the subject is used as a reference several times. News references to his art exhibit are also used a few times (not enough to established notability in my opinion). I used Google Translate to translate 3 (123 of the 4 articles not in English (Polish, I think) to get as much of an idea as I could to their contents. The articles seem to only mention the subject if mentioning him at all. The only reason I say this is a "weak delete" instead of a "delete" is because of the Grand Owl award. The reference given is a scan of an article which I cannot translate to verify the award (although I can see that his name is used in the first sentence). Even so, I don't feel, from my research, that the award is significant enough to establish notability. If someone could prove that the award is significant to establish notability, I may change my mind (give me proof, not your opinion unless you're an expert on such awards). The award of excellence is most certainly not significant enough for inclusion, in my opinion. OlYellerTalktome 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. So apparently their official website is a MySpace page now. I retract my "weak delete" !vote and replace it with "Delete". I don't see the Grand Owl award could possibly be significant enough to establish notability. OlYellerTalktome 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This search makes doesn't help the cause of substantiality either. I'm still searching but finding nothing but mentions of the Grand Owl with Tylman. Mostly self published or uses Tylman as a reference for the award. I retract my last comment but keep the Delete !vote. I'm still searching and finding nothing. OlYellerTalktome 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on the talk page - in a nutshell, this AfD would benefit if only editors not involved in the AfD case or with the subject and main author of the article will comment here, to avoid the battles of the last AfD and to allow for a consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Permit me to quote what Anti-Nationalist said at the deletion review [1]
Quote from Anti-Nationalist on a previous AfD/Deletion Review (Click Show ->)
  1. We can rule out notability for Tylman as a painter. True, he was selected to represent his hometown in 1981 at a competition of promising young Polish artists. But there is nothing to tell us that Tylman was recognized as the best artist of those selected for being represented at the exhibition. Nor did he win any award. Outside the brief news notice for the exhibition as a whole (and the existence of its catalogue), there is no evidence of any individual notability.
  2. We can easily see the absence of notability for Tylman as an airbrush illustrator: the "sources" for his works are the commercial works that have appeared in magazines. This does not meet notability, since airbrush illustrators who work on ads in magazines are not therefore inherently Wikipedia-notable. A team of illustrators that he was part of did win a Graphex Award in Canada (1991), but this is not evidence of individual notability, since Tylman himself was not named as an individual artist. The source for this is Tylman's own site.
  3. As regards Tylman's crative endeavors as a poet, it's already been explained in the AFD nominations that these works of poetry are entirely self-published. Significantly, there are no critical reviews or commentary, so notability as an author/poet is non-existent. Tylman's Grand Owl award – the only individual prize mentioned for any endeavor at all – is a student-level prize given by Jagellonian University.
    As was already explained previously in the nominations, the Anglophone Tylman poetry collections published by "Aspidistra Press" are in fact works produced by a vanity press (Tylman is the only published author for Aspidistra).
    The Polish-language poetry also appears to be as non-notable: the only interesting thing from Koty marcowe was the poem "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina" (An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin), which was included amidst the photographs in photo anthology Nowa Huta: Okruchy zycia I Meandry Historii by photographer Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz. The work is published by a non-commerical printer – the little "Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce" ("The Association of Slovaks in Poland"). There are no critical reviews.
    Tylman's article gives us two interviews connected to "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina". The first is an interview with Jerzy Karnasiewicz (not Richard Tylman) in a local Nowa Huta] supplement to the Krakow-based Gazeta Krakowska (there, Karnasiewicz simply mention's Tylman's identity as the author of the poem in the book).
    The other is an interview with Richard Tylman in Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki by Małgorzata Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz. Given that Małgorzata's last name is Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz and the author of the photo anthology in which Tylman's poem is to be found is Jerzy Karnasiewicz, this seem to have a deep WP:COI... Even if we are to assume no COI, though, Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki, where Tylman's interview appears, is just a small local publication in Nowa Huta (its English-language Wikipedia article was made by Richard Tylman (Poeticbent) after the third time that Richard Tylman was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's WP:EEML buddy Piotrus. ([2] [3])

Well, then – my rationale – and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us?

  1. For WP:ANYBIO (or Any biography):

    1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.

    2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

    No notability per WP:ANYBIO, it seems to me. The only individual award won by Tylman was the Grand Owl, a student-level award from Jagellonian University.
  2. For WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR (or any "creative professional"):

    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

    3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

    4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

    5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics - not applicable to Tylman

    There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either

    1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;

    2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;

    3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review;

    or

    4) has created work that (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or is to be found in many significant libraries.

    Accordingly, I do not see the basis for anything other than a deletion. Tylman is simply non-notable. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree entirely with all of this. Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can't believe the article is nominated - yet again, it's starting to get a bit ridiculous. Also if somebody could please tell Varsovian to avoid copying walls of text from previous discussions, he can simply link to it. Otherwise we can all start copying lots of text from previous AfDs...  Dr. Loosmark  11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "it was nominated before" is a terribly strong arguement for keeping the article around now. Do you have any evidence that the person has received indepth coverage from reliable sources, which would directly refute the concerns of most of the editors that have voted "delete"? --Jayron32 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although he's not technically part of WP:EEML, Loosmark has in the past been subjected to a topic ban for nationalistic edit warring on Poland-related stuff: User talk:Loosmark#Topic ban. Expecting rational arguments here is a waste of time. (I expect another editor of the same lot to complain on my talk about bringing up EEML anytime time now, as it has happened in the past; don't bother this time, I'll just rollback.) Pcap ping 12:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, I was not "technically part of the WP:EEML, same as you for example have also not been "technically part" of the WP:EEML. I was also not topic banned for "nationalistic edit warring" on Poland-related stuff but of course like usual in these discussions any personal attack goes.  Dr. Loosmark  12:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected: you were topic banned for misrepresenting the position of another editor and falsely accusing him. Quite unlike what's gonging on here. Pcap ping 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dr. Loosmark, as Jayron32 above, I'd like to know: where are your arguments, where is your evidence, your reliable sources? You have provided nothing that meets Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging, and you are the only one asking to keep this article. Also, in case you have not noticed it yet, may I point out to you the suggestion made by Pantherskin on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)? -- Matthead  Discuß   15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I participated in the previous AfD, where I also !voted "delete". I have been asked to participated in this one by Cunard (although his note above indicates that he notified all the participants of the previous AfD). Too little specific and detailed coverage of him for passing WP:ANYBIO and not enough to show notability under WP:CREATIVE. The only individual award mentioned in the article is Grand Owl which seems to be a student level award. No significant published reviews of his work are mentioned in the article. I looked up the library holdings for some of his books in Worldcat and they appear to be rather minimal[4][5][6]. Also, this is a WP:AUTO case, and, per WP:AUTO, autobiographies on Wikipedia are "strongly discouraged", which gives an additional impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (after looking at the AfDs and at the article's talk page) Sorry, but, I can't see any source that makes me say "yes, this source shows that he is notable by wikipedia standards". I don't see clear proof that he had significant impact in literature or in painting/illustration. Some sources looked good but, when looking at the sources in detail, all of them had some problem that invalidated them for notability purposes. Just as an example, Matthead commented on the second AfD that the Graphex award looked more like one of the secondary prizes handed out to the non-winners[7] and it was also awarded to a team and not personally to Tylman. I see a huge problem in the lack of third-party reviews of his work in notable literature journals. User:Anti-Nationalist analysis of WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST looks correct. I agree with Ethicoaestheticist's comment in the original AfD: "Living in Canada since 1982, I would expect a notable artist/writer to have received some English-language press.".
P.D.: I am not involved in none of the EEML mess, I spotted this in my watchlist, when someone posted notices at the talk pages of Fut.Perf., Hipocrite and JoshuaZ. Personally, I don't care about any COI held any editor, and I have only looked at the arguments about sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete In 2nd AfD I was a keep, but statements by Enric and Nsk92 above pushe me in the other direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to assess the Polish-language cites so I will defer to opinions above. However, I live in Vancouver and can say that the event broadcast by "Shaw Cable" possibly had fewer viewers than have contributed to this page; public-access television is not a citation that evokes the kind of editorial control that I would expect from a reliable source. I haven't found anything in local sources that indicates this individual has any notability at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put your mind at ease, Accounting4Taste. Not a single editor who voted in this AfD, with the exception of Loosmark (please correct me if I'm wrong), is fluent in Polish. None, has any interest in Polish culture inside or outside Poland. Not a single one has any familiarity with the Polish society in North-America, or the world poetry circles anywhere. None of them have any interest in the contemporary Polish-Canadian artists and authors, or, in the WP Project Poland (with the exception of foreign nationalists). The threshold of inclusion in this AfD is set against an imaginary benchmark of mainstream America, usually reserved for socialites, film stars, business leaders and politicians. Many references have been thrown out on that premise, over the past several months, including reviews. Some hyperlinks (such as the one above to atspace.com) won't read an actual name.[8] So please, take it for what it is. Don't look around for coverage in the Canadian news-media, because this is not an "immigrant success story", but a bio of a living poet. Many senior editors who care, have been prohibited by ArbCom from coming anywhere near this article, even though on April 26 it has been viewed 242 times.[9] That's why, I worry more about the User:Cunard's campaign of canvassing among the EEML warriors and their hidden motives, than about Shaw Cable viewers. -- Poeticbent talk 23:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Polish press in Canada.[10] TFD (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A factual correction to Poeticbent's edit: I !voted in this AfD before that edit, am fluent in Polish and have an interest in Polish culture, and have no connection to America, mainstream or otherwise. I would advise Mr Tylman to get a realistic view of his own unimportance and to stop making himself look ridiculous by defending this indefensible vanity article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop with the polite equivocating and say what you really think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, are you making that comment to Poeticbent, TFD, or to Phil Bridger? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The indentation of Joe's comment clearly indicates that it was directed at me, and I will take the criticism on board in the spirit in which it was intended :) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another factual correction to Poeticbent's edit: I have been living in Poland for very nearly 15 years (14 years and 8 months to be exact), have a working knowledge of Polish, regularly post on the Project Poland page, have written (professionally) about cultural matters in Poland for the best part of a decade and have no connection at all to North America. I would also advise Mr Tylman to take a more realistic view of his unimportance and urge all editors to recognise that Wikipedia is no place for vanity articles, especially ones as indefensible as this. Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must be seeing something I am not, DGG. The "Grand Owl" appears to be a non-notable award in a Polish Universitie's art department. I can't find much to indicate it even exists. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG probably refers to the Graphex Award, although if that is true I am not sure where he got from that the award is an international award. There are several problems though. Even within the Graphex competion the award is secondary, per this evaluation at the last Afd, [11] Not Tylman won the award, but the team Tylman was part of. There is zero third-party coverage, all we have is a scan of the award diploma on Tylmans diploma. That alone shows how notable this win was.
The Graphex competition is borderline notable at best, and there is a good chance that an AfD of the Graphex article would result in a delete. I tried to find any third party coverage for the Graphex competition itself, but all I found were press releases. Globe & Mail, the Vancouver Sun and other major Canadian newspaper never even mentioned the Graphex competition. Surely more most be found in an English-speaking country with widespread internet usage for a competition that took place as recently as this year. Except of course if the competition is not notable. Pantherskin (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean the subject is most notable for being a member of a team which once won an award which is so notable that there is zero coverage of it and the victory was so notable that there was zero coverage of it? Sounds like There is an [removed by Enric Naval, see below]. Shall I ask the school to send me a list of the past winners so we can write up articles for all of them? Although there is one difference: the school newspaper always publishes the names of the winners, so there’s more coverage of this event than there is of Graphex. Varsovian (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the option of not degrading WP by writing a vanity article about myself. I made full use of that option. The subject of the article wrote himself into WP, nobody else did. But now he (and his friends) still have the gall to claim that he in any way satisfies any of the criteria for inclusion at WP! Which part of ‘Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or promoting yourself, or a vanity press.’ do you not understand? Varsovian (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Varsovian, please avoid making silly comparisons that may sound very derogatory to the subject of the article. I unsderstand that you might be pissed off, but we are not here to make fun of the people we are writing about. I have removed your description of the egg & spoon race. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry to venture into parody here but some years back I won the Group IT Laureate award, against competition from all the continents of the globe. I can put a scan on my website, along with the citation that proves it to be an international award, and by DGG's reasoning I get an article. And if nobody creates it for me, I get to writ eit myself and ask my twitter followers and Facebook friends to come along and vote for it to be kept, if necessary. Hell, I can probably even ask for support at the conference I speaking at in a couple of weeks. In order to establish notability sources should be significant, credible, independent and primarily about the subject. In my judgment all the sources for this article fail one or more of these criteria. And yes, my distaste for vanity articles also plays a small part. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DGG, although I'm not entirely convinced about the award's notablity. Although I don't see any major notablity established, I don't see any good arguments that convince me that deleting this article will improve the project. This is on the line, but I would prefer to keep the page - it does get a fair number of hits over time. Outback the koala (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google News shows little of anything on the award he won, my message is that a non-notable award should not help save a non-notable article. A similar case of this occurred a few days for this afd. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Which one of you did (removed link to blog post making severe criminal charges), you sick little bastard. I'm going to the police and I promise you, Crime Stoppers and the courts will find out who you are. It's just a matter of time, but you're going to pay for your dreadful lies, like all Internet criminals blinded by hate. -- Poeticbent talk 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved my comments to ANI and to the user's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete COI vehicle and now a drama magnet too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Guidelines stop me being able to honestly say what I think about this. I hope they catch whoever has been orchestrating the campaign against a decent person. Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that being a "decent person" is not the baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. I personally know lots of decent people, and I am not sure that many of them merit a Wikipedia article solely on their decency. If you could provide some reliable sources which indicate that he is notable, it would go a long way towards encouraging the people that voted "delete" here to change their mind. --Jayron32 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (I commented earlier but did not vote.) I'm certain Tylman is a very talented artist, and otherwise a good human being. However, without sufficient coverage in reliable sources the content of this article cannot be independently verified. I could not find enough evidence to support notability, in general, or as an artist. (I also want to wish Mr. Tylman the best in this recent legal issue; he was the victim of a libelous defamation of character. This should not be tolerated, and should certainly be pursued legally.) Best wishes, Justin W Smith talk/stalk 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it is very difficult to assess the notability of a subject much of whose notability is derived from his work in a foreign language. I try to ask myself in these deletion discussions will readers be interested enough in the subject to look him/her/it up in wikipedia. Here the subject was publishing in Polish as recently as 2002. When I do a news search of Koty marcowe (The Felines of March), I get hits in Polish not English. He's in print apparently (translation by google) [12]. In English, he appears in videos doing poetry readings, [13] but I find very little else. Given the language barrier, I hate trumping a bunch of bilingual Poles who may see him as notable. Eudemis (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me.--Ms.Mamalala 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If don't mind, would you expand on this? What evidence did you find for notability? If I could find sufficient evidence that Tylman is notable (in a verifiable way), I'd be willing to change my vote. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whole bunch of cited sources, no question about it. What harm to keep this article? Tell me, because I don't see any reason to delete it. NONE. This campaign of hatred against that person is very out of place. 4th Nomination! Come on!--Ms.Mamalala 01:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This specific argument is discussed here. I'll quote what it says:

"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)"

As for your first statement ("Whole bunch of cited sources..."), source may be cited but that does not make them reliable, nor their content "verifiable". This argument is also addressed in here. (Both links are to the article: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your concern about multiple nominations (i.e, "4th Nomination! Come on!") is also addressed. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments do not appeal to me almost at all. I am of the opinion that this article should be kept because the sources are convincing and the person is notable.--Ms.Mamalala 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think to some extent there is a failure to recognize our limitations in evaluating works done in Polish. Contrary to what's been mentioned here, I believe Tylman's work has been published as part of poetry compilations in Poland and in the Polish language [14]. I'm uncomfortable saying he's not notable in Poland. Of course, when viewed solely through the narrow portal of English secondary sources he may not be. Eudemis (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor name translates as "Krakow: Advertising Agency NOVUM"? Is it this? A graphical printing shop? Is this backed by some editorial that normally publishes literary compilations? What other books has this shop produced? Who decides what gets published and what doesn't? In other words: is this a self-published book or is there some editorial board behind it? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is fishy about User:Mamalala. Account registered two days after the closure of the EEML arbitration case which resulted in the bans and topic bans for several users. Mamalala right away ventured with bold edits into the most contentious articles, and only three days after registering knew already how to correctly file a 3RR report.

Regarding the compilation, the editor of the compilation is apparently the same person who interviewed Tylman in the neighborhood magazine. But I think the real question is not whether a book is self-published or not, the real question is rather whether the book has received any reviews or coverage in third-party sources. Publishing a book or even many books does not in itself imply notability. Pantherskin (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Pantherskin could you please refrain from making outrageous and off-topic comments about my persona which in my view are made to contest my opinion about validity of this article. Please immediately cross out the smear you wrote about me. Thank you.--Ms.Mamalala 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Polish, but the book appears in numerous libraries across Poland: Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu, Uniwersytecka w Toruniu, Główna UMCS w Lublinie, Uniwersytecka KUL, Jagiellońska i Biblioteka, Medyczna Collegium Medicum, Biblioteka Publiczna m. st. Warszawy, Biblioteki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Poznaniu, Książnica Pomorska w Szczecinie. Just looking at the article's own bibliography, it includes an anthology - I'm guessing that it is here, [15] published by Wydawn. Tow. S±owakâow w Polsce. Again contrary to what's been mentioned, his book, Koty marcowe, appears to be available in many libraries across Poland. [16] and appears to be widely available for sale there [17] Of course it is possible that it was never reviewed. Eudemis (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a book held in any number of libraries is not sufficient for a biographical inclusion in Wikipedia. Look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Mertz_(3rd_nomination). Pcap ping 19:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your search. That the book is in these libraries is actually not very surprising. If a book is published in Poland, legal deposit requires that copies have to be submitted to all major Polish libraries. Compare that to most other countries where a copy has to be submitted only to the national library. As far as I can see all libraries in the list are legal deposit libraries, so there is not too much we can read into this - one way or another. The problem of course is more the lack of reviews or media coverage about the book(s) itself. As the article has largely been written by the subject himself, we can probably assume that no major third-party sources have been overlooked and that what is in the article is actually it. Pantherskin (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Consider all of this as obvious and blatant example of a bad faith nomination. (4th!) The internet is full of articles about Mr.Tylman and his work. Mr. Tylman is the author of books, received awards and I think nobody has doubts about this. He is notable enough to have article on English Wikipedia. Personally, I don’t know Mr. Tylman or his work but very recently I came across the defamatory article on the internet most likely written by someone who is active here as well. Mr.Tylman is hunted, slandered and he is a victim of incomprehensible to me hate campaign. It seems that a large proportion of voters are not aware of this. Article failed all three previous nominations, and now also should never be erased. This is not not just my opinion but all those who voted against now and previously. --Ms.Mamalala 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack and I kindly request that you redact it. TFD (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2010 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(4th_nomination)
No tags for this post.