Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waclaw Kolacz: Difference between revisions

Waclaw Kolacz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. While some new references have been added, there is still insufficient independent, secondary coverage establishing notability. Most of the cited material is primary, institutional, or family-sourced. The main editor has stated that he is the subject’s son [[1]], creating a conflict of interest under WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Article remains largely dependent on non-independent references, and fails to meet the threshold for inclusion pending reliable secondary sources. Acrom12 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (and question for article creator) – The formatting looks like it was written by AI, and all of the citations are not verifiable except one. Alukotron, did you use artificial intelligence (AI) or a large language model (LLM) to help create the article? Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did ask the AI to help me with formatting, since Wikipedia does not provide clear instructions, and I hope that I did not go against the rules of Wikipedia by doing so. However, the text – that is the content of the article about Waclaw Kolacz – has been carefully selected and crafted by me, and is all based on documents and letters that are in my possession, but it used to belong to KOLACZ. As I live in the United States and have limited access to other publications, I still managed diligently to create this brief encyclopedic entry about the memory of my father. There is really no conflict of interest only because of my blood relation to the subject. If you would read a chapter that I included in my book “My American Experience” about my father (Waclaw Kolacz) you would definitely see that I talk about my father from the very objective standpoint using more than a mere criticism in regard to his life and activities. I am open to suggestions, and I beg of all of you involved in this discussion to not render a negative verdict to delete this article. Help me to preserve the memory of this guy who went through enough while being alive. It’s time he really rests in peace having the memory of him preserved. I am the only surviving individual who cares about the WACLAW KOLACZ remembrance. Considering that almost all of his linocuts (the negatives and the prints) were destroyed and vast number of his oil paintings also shared the same fate (they were all stored in the basement that during the 90’s got flooded and the water damage was so severe that everything after being immersed in the water for a long period of time was deemed damaged beyond repair or reconstruction and was disposed (incinerated) at least this small memory token about him can live on. Alukotron (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alukotron, I understand you have a personal connection to the subject and that your intention is to preserve his memory. The issue isn’t about good faith, but about meeting Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability rules. Articles need to be based on independent, published, reliable sources rather than family documents or personal knowledge.

  Even with the new citations, most are still primary or family-based, so the coverage doesn’t yet show independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Because you’re related to the subject, this does fall under WP:COI, which just means edits should rely on outside, verifiable sources to keep things neutral. If more third-party coverage turns up later (newspaper pieces, exhibition reviews, academic mentions, etc.), the article could always be recreated with stronger sourcing. Acrom12 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, Zdzislaw Morawski’s book is not independent source? The documents with ID numbers of his WWII awards is not reliable? The printed Cataloque of the Festival Sztuk Pieknych that took place in Warsaw’s ZACHETA National Gallery in 1966 is not a good source? A book that referenced clearly Kolacz’s donation of the Copernicus portrait to the XXXIII Liceum in Warsaw is not a good source? If that is not good what is?  Alukotron (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t have access to anything more that I could add since in 2015 ALL documentations and my entire library was destroyed by my landlord. I am helpless here… it looks like the memory of my dad – will be erased and forgotten Alukotron (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your patience and assistance. Goodbye.  Alukotron (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]