Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst von Manstein (2nd nomination)

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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Catrìona (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst von Manstein

[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)

It violates Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

The subject seems to have done nothing of historical interest. He served in the army without being distinguished, was a teacher without being distinguished, and converted to another faith, for which four decades later he suffered discrimination. These characteristics are shared with millions.

~~It also violates Notability in general – From Your first article~~

We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject.

~~Here, there are only two in English and these are in the nature of biographical notes rather than establishing any significant achievements or roles.~~ Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I greatly appreciate that Jontel has given a detailed explanation of why they believe deletion to be warranted. However, I wonder to what degree WP:BEFORE was performed. I see at least three references: Jewish Quarterly in 1950 (three pages of coverage), ILBA, Israelitische Lehrerbildungsanstalt Würzburg, 1864-1938 (three pages of coverage), Jewish Quarterly in 1985 (a page of coverage). Even if these sources are not immediately available to us we know they exist and thus WP:NEXIST applies. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to with what someone did in their life. We have articles on people who get significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore an article just by virtue of being born. Notability has only to do with what is written about them. In this case there are at least two sources that provide coverage of his life. I believe he meets the notability guideline. ~ GB fan 12:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other sources do WP:NEXIST, including an article in The Jewish Monthly, 1950, Volume 4, Issues 1-12, pp 265-267 [1], and four pages in the book Jakob Stoll und die Israelitische Lehrerbildungsanstalt: eine Spurensuche (2002) [2]. There is no requirement for sources to be in English - WP:NONENG. The sources cited, and these additional ones, do "have substantial discussion of the subject". The fact that there are these sources is an indication of his notability, and in fact they do state what was notable about him, that a member of an aristocratic German family converted to Judaism and was interned during WWII. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To aid the discussion, my primary case as stated above is WP:BIO i.e. that
the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”
Is conversion by a member of an aristocratic family to Judaism in the 19th century significant, interesting or unusual and, even if the latter is the case, is that really noteworthy? Internment by the Nazis, even of aristocrats, is not unusual of itself. Jontel (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide these things. We let reliable sources decide for us. They decided that this man is notable, and they did so by giving significant coverage to him. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Assessing the subject's worthiness or distinctiveness is irrelevant; what matters is whether there are sources and there are. Sources in other languages are acceptable for this purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being Jewish and getting Nazis to like you is such a rare achievement it practically guarantees historical coverage. But as I'm a stickler for it I'll have a look. Here's some academic coverage. A dedicated biography linked at one of the biggest Holocaust Museums. That's enough to pass WP:BASIC, IMO. SITH (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The University of Würzburg in northwestern Bavaria maintains a biographical database called "Jüdisches Unterfranken" (Jewish Lower Franconia). The entry "Ernst von Manstein" (see here) is not only based on individual information in English but also on two additional reliable, scientific resources in German: "Biographisches Handbuch Würzburger Juden 1900-1945" by Reiner Straetz and a proposed dissertation project by Lida Barner from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (see the "Quellenangaben" [1016] and [1066]). --Kolya (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contributors are putting undue weight on the existence of sources. It is unsurprising that these Jewish publications celebrate an example of conversion to Judaism. While such a conversion is gratifying to them, I suggest that such celebration does not make it generally significant. On another point, Nazi recognition of him at his funeral was presumably due to his familial relationship to Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, who was the adopted son of his brother i.e. his nephew. As per WP:BIO,
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.
Jontel (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not putting "undue weight on the existence of sources". So long as WP:NOT is not breached, the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources is the be-all and end-all of the analysis that takes place in AFD. We do not apply arbitrary measures for what is and is not notable, we let reliable sources decide what is notable - I they appear to have decided that the subject of this article is notable. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that that is what the WP:BIO says in its Basic criteria. However, as WP:N says

“Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

If the Basic criteria was the be-all and end-all, it would seem to make a nonsense of WP:BIO’s introductory definition that

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.

Moreover, many of the additional criteria in WP:BIO imply that people who meet the Basic criteria should not be given a page automatically. Further, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process says

Generally speaking, notable subjects will be those for which sufficient sourcing is available, but there are exceptions in both directions

I think that this is such an exception. Jontel (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2018 (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.