- 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. The one "keep" opinion is meritless: being "President of the Society of Philatelic Americans" is not among our criteria for notability. Being covered in sources is. Sandstein 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Vincent Domanski Jr.
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vincent Domanski Jr. ( | 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)
The one source here does not link. My search find some catelog entries for works he created, but no source that provided the indepth coverage in a reliable secondary source that is indepedent of the subject that we need to create an adequate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Vincent Domanski Jr. was President of the Society of Philatelic Americans.
Polycarpa aurata (
talk)
22:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would only be grounds for keeping if we could present multiple indepdent reliable in-depth secondary sources that cover this information, which are totally lacking in the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia policy, the existence of independent reliable in-depth secondary sources is required to establish notability. However, policy does not require that they are in the article. Please review WP:NEXIST, or work to gain consensus to change it, but don't argue against the policy in a deletion discussion. Jacona ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well no one has presented any such sources here or in the article. My above arguement says that such sources need to exist and be identified. It in no way says that they need to exist in the article. No such sources have been identified at all in this disucssion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would only be grounds for keeping if we could present multiple indepdent reliable in-depth secondary sources that cover this information, which are totally lacking in the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I searched on Newspapers.com I came up with nothing that could be SIGCOV (the most in-depth article I could find was this, which only says he told the history of a Polish stamp). The American Philatelic Society has two paragraphs on him ( [1]). I also see a few mentions in books about philately, the most in-depth being here (I can't view much of it so I can't determine if its SIGCOV). I don't see enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked Newspapers.com as well and reached the same conclusion as BeanieFan11: there's a bit of coverage, but none of it is quite substantial enough to satisfy the GNG. I wouldn't say that the awards he received are so "well-known and significant" as to trigger WP:ANYBIO crit. 1, either. No single article would make an appropriate redirect target, in my view, so I'm leaning delete; glad to reconsider if there are sources I'm missing. (Quite a few of the articles linked from American Philatelic Society Hall of Fame#Recipients, many of which were mass-created by the same author, seem to be of dubious notability—it might be worth taking a more in-depth look at whether they meet the GNG.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The one "keep" opinion is meritless: being "President of the Society of Philatelic Americans" is not among our criteria for notability. Being covered in sources is. Sandstein 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Vincent Domanski Jr.
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vincent Domanski Jr. ( | 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)
The one source here does not link. My search find some catelog entries for works he created, but no source that provided the indepth coverage in a reliable secondary source that is indepedent of the subject that we need to create an adequate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Vincent Domanski Jr. was President of the Society of Philatelic Americans.
Polycarpa aurata (
talk)
22:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would only be grounds for keeping if we could present multiple indepdent reliable in-depth secondary sources that cover this information, which are totally lacking in the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia policy, the existence of independent reliable in-depth secondary sources is required to establish notability. However, policy does not require that they are in the article. Please review WP:NEXIST, or work to gain consensus to change it, but don't argue against the policy in a deletion discussion. Jacona ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well no one has presented any such sources here or in the article. My above arguement says that such sources need to exist and be identified. It in no way says that they need to exist in the article. No such sources have been identified at all in this disucssion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would only be grounds for keeping if we could present multiple indepdent reliable in-depth secondary sources that cover this information, which are totally lacking in the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I searched on Newspapers.com I came up with nothing that could be SIGCOV (the most in-depth article I could find was this, which only says he told the history of a Polish stamp). The American Philatelic Society has two paragraphs on him ( [1]). I also see a few mentions in books about philately, the most in-depth being here (I can't view much of it so I can't determine if its SIGCOV). I don't see enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked Newspapers.com as well and reached the same conclusion as BeanieFan11: there's a bit of coverage, but none of it is quite substantial enough to satisfy the GNG. I wouldn't say that the awards he received are so "well-known and significant" as to trigger WP:ANYBIO crit. 1, either. No single article would make an appropriate redirect target, in my view, so I'm leaning delete; glad to reconsider if there are sources I'm missing. (Quite a few of the articles linked from American Philatelic Society Hall of Fame#Recipients, many of which were mass-created by the same author, seem to be of dubious notability—it might be worth taking a more in-depth look at whether they meet the GNG.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.